There are few events more heartbreaking and disturbing than judicial proceedings to decide whether a mother can maintain custody of her child or be forced to put her up for adoption. The case of three-year-old L.J. and M.B., her troubled, abusive, meth-using mother, would bring tears to even the most hardened spectator.

When L.J. was just three-years-old, she was removed from her mother’s custody. The court felt M.B could neither support nor protect her child. For the next three years, M.B. tried, usually unsuccessfully, to follow her court-prescribed treatment plan. Because she failed to get treatment and improve her mothering skills, the court terminated her parental rights. At her most recent hearing, M.B. asked the court to allow her to submit “self-made recordings” of her interactions with her daughter. She felt the videos would show the court that the two of them had a “beneficial parental relationship,” which would prevent the child’s adoption. The juvenile court judge refused, and the mother appealed.

A unanimous decision by a three-judge panel in California’s Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the ruling of Lassen County Superior Court Judge Candace J. Benson (retired from Los Angeles Superior Court and assigned by the Chief Justice) on March 23. L.J. would be free to adopt. The opinion, which is partially certified for publication, was authored by Yolo County Superior Court Judge Samuel McAdam, sitting on assignment.

The custody crisis began in February 2020 when police responded to a call concerning a fight between M.B. and two of her other children. The argument got physical and caused a shelf to fall on L.J. The other two children, who had been threatened, told the police that M.B. was hysterical, and she later admitted she was under the influence of methamphetamines.

Five days later, L.J. was removed from M.B. and detained by the Lassen County Health and Social Services Agency (the Agency) because of her mother’s use of illicit drugs. Later that month, the Agency sustained the young girl’s detention over her mother’s objection. The following month, L.J. was removed from the physical custody of her mother, who was ordered to enroll in planned “reunification services.” The plan consisted of counseling, anger management, education and treatment for substance abuse.

Five months later, the Agency asked the court to terminate M.B.’s unification plan. They observed that her drug use continued, she rarely visited L.J. and “had made no progress.” Regular status reports showed erratic improvement and suicide attempts. In September, things changed and the mother began going to meetings and registering for parenting classes. The court, however, did not change its removal from custody order.

In March 2021, L.J. was returned to her mother’s custody. But just two months later, M.B. began to fight with her new husband, and the daughter was “exposed to a violent confrontation.” After being exposed to another fight in May, during which M.B. was allegedly using drugs and threatening suicide, L.J. was detained again. M.B.’s positive drug use and missed visitations continued into June.

The June report ramped things up again. Although she was participating in most of her scheduled visitations, M.B. was also making serious allegations against her new husband. These included a report that he had raped L.J., now four years old, and was exhibiting stress and anxiety after her mother discussed “adult issues” with her. Reunification and custody were denied again in August 2021. “Suitable adoptive parents” were found in late December to whom L.J. was returned for safety.

An adoption assessment concluded that it “was not in the minor’s best interest …. (and) continuing the legal relationship with the mother was outweighed by the benefit of legal permanence through adoption.” Observers found that L.J. suffered from the “chaotic and confrontational visits” with her mother. Clinical psychologists acknowledged that there was “some bond” between mother and child, but “severance of the bond would not be detrimental to the child.”

Despite laws to the contrary that said visitation recordings were not permitted under the Penal Code, M.B. recorded interactions between her and her daughter. Her lawyer moved to have these recordings admitted to a July 2022 hearing about L.J.’s adoption. The Agency objected, saying recordings are misdemeanors without consent of the parties. M.B. said that her daughter knew about and consented to being videoed. The judge disagreed because L.J. is a minor and consent must come not from her mother, but from her legal guardian ad litem.

The juvenile court concluded “that there was clear and convincing evidence the minor was likely to be adopted, none of the exceptions to adoption existed, termination of parental rights would not be detrimental to the minor, and it was in the best interest of the minor to terminate parental rights.”

The appellate court’s opinion restated the Penal Code law that forbids such recordings and makes them inadmissible in any judicial proceedings. The appellate court also had a psychologist review the videos, and he found that they “did not change his opinion that it would not be detrimental to have parental rights terminated. It also found that the recordings were “cumulative of other evidence” and were “selective recordings” that just showed the most favorable parts of the parent/child visitations.

McAdams’ opinion also explained that the exception to the Welfare & Institutions Code cited by the mother did not apply. That exception bars adoption when “parents have maintained regular visitations and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship.” M.B.’s arguments that her “due process rights had been violated” were not persuasive and she did not meet the burden of proving that there was “a substantial, positive, emotional attachment” between her and her now six-year-old daughter. The opinion concluded that M.B. could not show any prejudice.

L.J. will now be adopted, and it is hoped that her new life will replace a sorrowful beginning with a happy ending.