Juvenile court did not err in rejecting expert opinion testimony where the expert opinion was based on studies rather than the facts of the case. The juvenile court terminated the parents’ rights to M.V. in December 2021. In January 2023, the order was vacated and remanded for a supplemental bonding study and a new section 366.26 hearing. At the second 366.26 hearing, the bonding expert testified that they had observed a visit between M.V. and each of the parents, interviewed the relevant parties, and concluded that M.V. had a secure attachment with each parent and would suffer a detriment if…
Juvenile court did not err in rejecting expert opinion testimony where the expert opinion was based on studies rather than the facts of the case. The juvenile court terminated the parents’ rights to M.V. in December 2021. In January 2023, the order was vacated and remanded for a supplemental bonding study and a new section 366.26 hearing. At the second 366.26 hearing, the bonding expert testified that they had observed a visit between M.V. and each of the parents, interviewed the relevant parties, and concluded that M.V. had a secure attachment with each parent and would suffer a detriment if the parental relationships were severed. Following the presentation of evidence, the juvenile court again terminated parental rights. Both Mother and Father appealed and the reviewing court affirmed. The admission or rejection of expert testimony lies largely within the discretion of the court, and its action will not be disturbed on appeal unless the court has abused its discretion. The bonding expert’s conclusions that termination of the parental relationships would be detrimental to M.V. were generic and based on research findings about the impact of terminating secure attachments generally, rather than an analysis based on observations and evidence bearing on how M.V. would be affected by losing these particular relationships in light of the events related to this case.
The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B338420.PDF
