Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, No. J515590 Carol Isackson, Judge.
McCONNELL, P. J.
Anthony M. (Anthony) appeals the judgment terminating his parental rights to his son, A.M. Anthony contends the evidence is insufficient to support the finding his son was adoptable. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In September 2004 the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) filed a dependency petition for three-year-old A.M. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (g).) The petition alleged Anthony's whereabouts were unknown. A.M. was detained in Polinsky Children's Center (Polinsky) then placed in a foster home. In January 2006, after this court's reversal of the dispositional judgment on notice grounds, the juvenile court dismissed the petition.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
A.M.'s mother died in 2001.
In July 2007, when A.M. was five years old, the Agency filed a new dependency petition. The petition alleged Anthony left A.M. with an inappropriate caretaker (§ 300, subd. (b)). A.M. was detained in a foster home. In November the court entered a true finding on the petition. Without adjudicating A.M. a dependent child, the court ordered services to keep the family together and placed A.M. and Anthony under the Agency's supervision for six months (§§ 301, 360, subd. (b)). In November A.M. began living with a nonrelative extended family member (caretaker).
The court dismissed an allegation that Anthony was incarcerated and unable to arrange appropriate care.
In April 2008 the Agency filed a third dependency petition for A.M., who was then six years old. The petition alleged Anthony had been arrested and remained incarcerated, and the caretaker was unwilling to care for A.M. without financial assistance (§ 360, subd. (c)). A.M. was detained with the caretaker. In July the caretaker reported that A.M. acted out after visits with Anthony. That month the Agency filed an amended petition alleging Anthony was arrested for battery in April, and the caretaker was unwilling to provide ongoing care without the Agency's intervention. In October the court sustained the amended petition and ordered A.M. placed with the caretaker. A.M.'s behavior improved, although problems remained.
The court struck an allegation that Anthony remained incarcerated.
Around July 2009 the caretaker took A.M. to a therapy appointment. The caretaker said she was unable to schedule another appointment because she was in the process of moving. In September the Agency filed a supplemental petition for eight-year-old A.M. alleging the caretaker was no longer willing to care for him. The caretaker said A.M.'s "behavior has escalated and he needs help." Contact with Anthony caused A.M. to be defiant and aggressive. A.M. choked the caretaker's two-year-old daughter after a telephone conversation with Anthony. Anthony refused to return A.M. after a visit, threatened the caretaker and swore and yelled at her. A.M. was detained in Polinsky and then in a foster home. The court entered a true finding on the supplemental petition and ordered A.M. placed in foster care.
On February 11, 2010, A.M. met a prospective adoptive family. On February 22, he was moved to the family's home, his eighth placement since 2004. A.M. was eight and one-half years old when the section 366.26 hearing took place on March 3.
DISCUSSION
The Agency had the burden of proving adoptability. (In re Gregory A. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1554, 1557, 1559-1561.) "Although a finding of adoptability must be supported by clear and convincing evidence, it is nevertheless a low threshold: The court must merely determine that it is 'likely' that the child will be adopted within a reasonable time. [Citations.]" (In re K.B. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1275, 1292.) A finding of general adoptability "focuses on the minor, e.g., whether the minor's age, physical condition, and emotional state make it difficult to find a person willing to adopt the minor." (In re Sarah M. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1642, 1649, italics omitted.) A child who is not generally adoptable may be specifically adoptable, that is, adoptable "because a prospective adoptive family has been identified as willing to adopt the child." (Id. at p. 1650.) A child's psychological and behavioral problems may make it more difficult to find adoptive homes, but do not necessarily prevent an adoptability finding. (In re Lukas B. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1145, 1154; In re Helen W. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 71, 75, 79.) Construing the record most favorably to the judgment (In re Josue G. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 725, 732), substantial evidence supports the court's finding A.M. was generally and specifically adoptable (In re Lukas B., supra, at p. 1154).
A.M. began regular psychotherapy in October 2009, with the goals of decreasing his aggression, overcoming his depression and learning to communicate honestly. By the time of the hearing, his aggressive tendencies had diminished and his mood had improved. He understood the difference between right and wrong. A.M.'s therapist believed his aggression and lying would decrease in a stable adoptive home. A.M. did not need psychotropic medication.
There were reports of "[s]ome minimal sexualized behaviors" in the foster home where A.M. lived before his move to the prospective adoptive home. For reasons unrelated to A.M., the previous foster family was not willing to adopt. The family asked that A.M. be returned to their home, however, if the adoptive placement failed.
A.M. had a sweet, charming disposition. He was affectionate, friendly, kind and generous. He attached easily to caregivers and liked to please people. He was in good health, with no delays or significant mental health issues. He was resilient and cooperative with his therapist. Although he was behind in math and spelling, he learned quickly, loved to read and was intelligent and articulate. He was attractive and athletic. He wanted to be adopted. The social worker testified A.M.'s aggression and oppositional behavior did not preclude adoption because that behavior was far outweighed by his positive characteristics.
A.M.'s prospective adoptive family had an approved home study and had already adopted one child. The family was engaged in therapy with A.M. and his therapist. The therapist believed the prospective adoptive parents met A.M.'s needs. A.M. was adjusting well to the home. Approximately 13 additional local families, and 53 families out of the county or state, were willing to adopt him despite his behavioral issues.
The court did not err by finding A.M. adoptable.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: McDONALD, J., O'ROURKE, J.