Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. Nos. DP-SQ-07-0006271 and DP-SQ-08-0006383
NICHOLSON, Acting P. J.
K.B. and R.C., parents of the minors, appeal from orders of the juvenile court terminating their parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395 [further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code].) Appellants contend substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court’s finding that the minors were likely to be adopted within a reasonable time. We affirm.
FACTS
The two minors, A.C. and J.C., who are the subjects of this appeal, were born and became dependent children during the pendency of a companion dependency case involving their eight siblings. A complete factual background is unnecessary for the determination of this appeal and can be found in our prior unpublished opinion in case No. C059877. In essence, the two minors, who are Indian children, were adjudged dependents, reunification services were denied and the juvenile court set a hearing pursuant to section 366.26 to select permanent plans for the minors.
This court has dealt with the siblings’ case in prior appeals. (See case Nos. C059169, C054034.)
The report for the section 366.26 hearing stated that A.C. now 21 months old, had one placement since her removal from appellant, her sibling, S.C., also lived there, and this prospective adoptive home was approved by the tribe. J.C., nine months old, was living in the foster home where he was initially placed after removal but was to be moved to a prospective adoptive home because the current foster parent did not wish to adopt him. The Cherokee tribe had found an appropriate tribal placement for J.C. as a prospective adoptive home. Both minors had serious medical problems which continued to be assessed. A.C. was medically stable but still had breath-holding spells with seizure-like episodes. J.C. was also stable and had been diagnosed with spastic cerebral palsy and fetal alcohol effects. Additionally, J.C. had seizure-like activity and there was still concern about his hearing. Both minors had developmental delays: A.C. had some motor, speech, and language delays, J.C. had more global delays. Both were regional center clients. The report stated the original plan for J.C. was to place him with A.C. and S.C. but the Cherokee tribe had located a tribal home which was being evaluated.
We note that, during the disposition hearing, in an attempt to regain custody of the minors, the parents presented testimony from the minors’ doctors to show that no special care was required to deal with the minors’ medical problems.
At the selection and implementation hearing, the social worker testified that two families identified by the tribe were assessed; one was deemed inappropriate but the other was interested in J.C., fully aware of his problems and willing to accept a child with special needs. The tribal representative informed the court the tribe was in agreement with the recommendation to terminate parental rights and noted that the prospective adoptive home for J.C. is an approved Cherokee home. The court found the minors were likely to be adopted in a reasonable time and terminated parental rights.
DISCUSSION
Appellants contend substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court’s finding that the minors were likely to be adopted within a reasonable time because both had medical and developmental issues. Appellants argue the medical assessments were ongoing and the full extent of the minors’ problems were not known. Further, J.C. was not yet in a prospective adoptive home and, in any case, if the proposed placements for the minors failed they were unlikely to be adopted by anyone else.
When the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding or order is challenged on appeal, even where the standard of proof in the trial court is clear and convincing, the reviewing court must determine if there is any substantial evidence -- that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value -- to support the conclusion of the trier of fact. (In re Angelia P. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 908, 924; In re Jason L. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1206, 1214.) In making this determination we recognize that all conflicts are to be resolved in favor of the prevailing party and that issues of fact and credibility are questions for the trier of fact. (In re Jason L., supra, 222 Cal.App.3d at p. 1214; In re Steve W. (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 10, 16.) The reviewing court may not reweigh the evidence when assessing the sufficiency of the evidence. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318-319.)
“If the court finds the child is adoptable, it must terminate parental rights absent circumstances under which it would be detrimental to the child.” (In re Ronell A. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1352, 1368, original emphasis.) In making that finding, the court looks to the assessment and any other relevant evidence. (§ 366.26) When the court determines, “by a clear and convincing standard, that it is likely the child will be adopted, the court shall terminate parental rights and order the child placed for adoption. The fact that the child is not yet placed in a preadoptive home nor with a relative or foster family who is prepared to adopt the child, shall not constitute a basis for the court to conclude that it is not likely the child will be adopted.” (§ 366.26)
Determination of whether a child is likely to be adopted focuses first upon the characteristics of the child. (In re Sarah M. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1642, 1649.) “There must be convincing evidence of the likelihood that the adoption will take place within a reasonable time.” (In re Brian P. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 616, 624.) The fact that a prospective adoptive family is willing to adopt the minor is evidence that the minor is likely to be adopted by that family or some other family in a reasonable time. (In re Lukas B. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1145, 1154.)
Both minors are young and their medical conditions are known and stable, although further assessment is ongoing to fully define the parameters of their medical conditions. Both minors are regional center clients and getting supportive services to deal with developmental delays. In A.C.’s case, her current caretaker who has dealt with her problems for nearly two years wishes to adopt her. Both A.C.’s current caretaker and a prospective adoptive Cherokee family located by the tribe are interested in adopting J.C. Both are aware of his issues and remain interested in him. While both minors present some challenges, the court assessed the minors, their conditions, the level of care they require and the interest currently shown in adopting them. Ample evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that the minors are likely to be adopted within a reasonable time.
DISPOSITION
The orders of the juvenile court terminating parental rights are affirmed.
We concur: RAYE, J., BUTZ, J.