In re David D

In In re David D. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 941, the trial court only allowed the mother a single visit with her children pending the termination hearing. (Id. at p. 955.) The David D. court ruled that was inadequate because it denied the mother the opportunity to avoid termination of her parental rights under the exception now found in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) by showing she had visited them regularly. (In re David D., supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at p. 955.) Section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) states that a compelling reason for avoiding termination arises when "the parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship." The record showed that the family was close to reunifying. Visitation had been regular and had been increased in frequency and to unsupervised status, when visits were suddenly suspended, in part due to questionable legal advice by the mother's attorney. The Department then changed its recommendation and moved towards termination of her parental rights. Only one further visit was ordered even though the children wanted to continue seeing their mother and a bonding study indicated that they would benefit from continuing a relationship with her. The court noted that these were "extraordinary" circumstances, justifying the return of the case for the provision of further services. (In re David D., supra, 28 Cal.App.4th 941, 951.) The referee ignored the recommendation of the court-appointed expert and suspended visitation with the mother before reunification services were terminated and thereafter entirely denied visitation. (Id. at p. 955.) Under those circumstances, the Court of Appeal reversed the order terminating parental rights and ordered an additional six months of reunification services, including visitation as frequently as possible consistent with the children's well being. (Id. at p. 956.)