Background
This is the second appeal involving Collin H. and Hadley H. In the first appeal (In re Collin H. et al., July 5, 2024, F087491, nonpub. opn.), the Fifth District reversed the denial of the guardians' petition to terminate parental rights, holding the trial court erred in finding the children were not in the legal custody of guardians Adam C. and Melissa C. under Probate Code section 1516.5. The guardianship, granted August 22, 2019, gave the guardians sole care, custody, and control, with visitation at their discretion.
On October 12, 2021, the guardians petitioned to terminate both parents' rights under Probate Code section 1516.5 and Family Code section 7822, alleging the parents left the children in their care without meaningful communication for over six months. After continuances, the trial court denied the petition in December 2023, citing lack of ICWA compliance and failure to show intent to abandon. This court reversed in July 2024 and remanded for a new hearing.
On remand, a new court trial began August 18, 2025; the parties agreed the only issue was whether termination was in the children's best interest. The children, then 11 and 8, had lived with the guardians for six years and viewed them as their psychological parents. A bonding study found no established parent-child bond between the father and either child. The father's last visit was June 28, 2019; he tested positive for methamphetamine multiple times and never petitioned for visitation. On November 17, 2025, the trial court granted the petition, finding the father not credible and adoption by the guardians in the children's best interest. The father timely appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal under In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835. Father's appointed counsel reported no arguable issues, and the court let father file a personal letter brief, which did not present good cause that an arguable issue of reversible error exists; the court dismissed the appeal.
Father's argument—that the trial court failed to consider the guardians' denial of his visitation requests—failed because his relationship with the children was disrupted when the guardianship was established, not at the termination hearing (Guardianship of Ann S. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1110). After years of guardianship, the children had a fully developed interest in a stable, permanent placement with committed caregivers. The trial court could reasonably find barriers to contact justified by the parents' ongoing substance abuse, and the appellate court declined to revisit the credibility finding that father minimized his drug use.
Under the substantial evidence standard (the trial court's best-interest finding had to rest on clear and convincing evidence), the court found ample evidence that adoption was in the children's best interest: the father's limited relationship was substantially outweighed by the children's need for secure, permanent attachment to the guardians, and its own record review found no arguable issues. The appeal was dismissed.
Key Takeaways
- Under Probate Code section 1516.5, termination requires that the parents lack legal custody, the child has been in the guardian's physical custody for at least two years, and the court finds adoption by the guardian would benefit the child, proved by clear and convincing evidence.
- When appointed appellate counsel files a no-issues brief under In re Phoenix H., the appellant may file a personal letter brief but must present argument and authority showing good cause that an arguable issue exists; failure to do so results in dismissal.
- A parent's relationship with a child is disrupted when the guardianship is established, not at the later termination hearing, and long-term guardianship gives children a compelling interest in stability with their psychological parents.
- Appellate courts apply the substantial evidence standard to best-interest findings in termination cases and do not reweigh the trial court's credibility determinations.
- Guardians' visitation restrictions may be justified by ongoing parental substance abuse, and a parent's limited contact may be outweighed by the children's need for permanent attachment with the guardians.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the Phoenix H. framework in termination appeals: appellants must present cogent legal argument with supporting authority, and the court's independent record review confirms the dismissal while preserving the appellant's burden of showing reversible error.
The opinion also shows how the best-interest standard under section 1516.5 operates in long-term guardianships: the critical disruption in the parent-child relationship occurs when the guardianship is established, and deference to credibility findings plus the children's need for permanency guide termination decisions where parents have had minimal contact.
Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket