Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Super. Ct. No. J512472, Carol Isackson, Judge. Affirmed.
AARON, Judge.
M.H. and L.J. appeal orders terminating their parental rights to their twin daughters, C.H. and C.H. (collectively the twins). M. contends that there is not substantial evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that the twins are likely to be adopted. L. joins in M.'s arguments. We affirm the orders.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On October 28, 2005, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) petitioned under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) on behalf of the twins, alleging that both L. and the twins tested positive for methamphetamine at the time of the twins' birth, L. admitted having used drugs during her pregnancy, and that she had received little prenatal care. The social worker reported that L. has a history of drug abuse and that she has six other children who are living with relatives.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
The twins were born prematurely and suffered severe drug withdrawal symptoms. Their lungs were not fully developed and they required assistance to breathe and to maintain steady body temperatures. For the first eight and one-half months of her life, one of the twins required an apnea monitor.
At the jurisdictional hearing on January 12, 2006, the court found the allegations of the petitions to be true. At the dispositional hearing on February 14, the court found that M. is the presumed father. The court also found the twins to be dependent children, placed them in out-of-home care, and ordered services for the parents.
The social worker reported that in May 2006, the twins were moved to a foster home. One of the twins had progressed to the point that she was able to sit up by herself and was crawling. By July 11, this twin no longer required the apnea monitor. The other twin was not yet sitting up or crawling, but she babbled and smiled more than her sister did. M. said that he was not able to have the twins placed with him. L. did not participate in services. She was arrested after a domestic violence incident with M., and for possessing drugs.
At the six-month review hearing on October 5, 2006, the court terminated services, continued the twins in out-of-home care and set a section 366.26 hearing.
For the section 366.26 hearing, the social worker reported that the twins were receiving services from Early Start, and that they were making good progress in developing motor skills. Their teacher was working with them to help them develop their verbal abilities. The social worker opined that the twins were adoptable because of their young age, overall good health, and lack of major developmental delays.
The twins met their prospective adoptive parents, who had had an approved adoptive home study, on January 30, 2007. They then began to make the transition into this home. The social worker said that if the prospective adoptive parents were not able to adopt the twins, there were four other approved adoptive families in San Diego that were interested in adopting children with the twins' characteristics, and 51 additional families outside of San Diego County who were potential adoptive parents. In an addendum report dated April 24, 2007, the social worker reported that the twins had been in the prospective adoptive home since February 4, that they were adjusting well, and that the prospective adoptive parents were committed to adopting them.
At the section 366.26 hearing on April 24, 2007, the court considered the Agency's reports, the arguments of counsel and a statement by L. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that the twins were likely to be adopted if parental rights were terminated and that none of the exceptions of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1) applied. The court terminated parental rights and determined that the permanent plan would be adoption.
DISCUSSION
M. and L. contend that there is not substantial evidence to support the court's finding that the twins are likely to be adopted. M. and L. note that the twins have special medical needs and significant developmental delays, that they had been in their prospective home for only two months before the section 366.26 hearing, and that the social worker had visited them only twice prior to the hearing.
Before a court frees a child for adoption it must determine by clear and convincing evidence that the child is likely to be adopted within a reasonable time. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1); In re Jennilee T. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 212, 223.) "In resolving this issue, the court focuses on the child -- whether his age, physical condition and emotional state make it difficult to find a person willing to adopt him." (In re David H. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 368, 378.) Whether there is a prospective adoptive family for the child is a factor for the court to consider, but is not determinative by itself. (Ibid.)
A reviewing court must uphold a juvenile court's findings and orders if they are supported by substantial evidence. (In re Amos L. (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 1031, 1036-1037.) "[W]e must indulge all reasonable inferences to support the findings of the juvenile court [citation], and we must also ' . . . view the record in the light most favorable to the orders of the juvenile court.' " (In re Luwanna S. (1973) 31 Cal.App.3d 112, 114.) The appellant bears the burden to show that the evidence is insufficient to support the court's findings. (In re Geoffrey G. (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 412, 420.)
The parents have not shown that the court's finding that the twins are likely to be adopted is not supported by substantial evidence. Although they were born prematurely and tested positive for methamphetamine at birth, and one of the twins initially required an apnea monitor, they had made great progress. By July 2006, the twin who had suffered from apnea no longer required the monitor and was sitting up by herself and crawling. The twins began receiving Early Start services twice each month in October 2006. By mid-January 2007, their teacher reported that their growth and development were excellent. By November 2006, they were both walking. At the time of the hearing, they were no longer medically fragile and had only normal childhood illnesses. They were living in an approved adoptive home and there were no concerns about the prospective adoptive family's abilities to meet the twins' needs. The prospective adoptive parents were committed to providing the twins with a stable, permanent home.
The social worker opined that the twins were adoptable based on their age, their overall good health and the fact that they had no major developmental delays. She had observed them in the prospective adoptive home. The social worker reported that there were four other approved adoptive homes in San Diego County interested in adopting children like the twins, and 51 other potentially adoptive families outside of the county. The social worker had experience and training in assessing a child's adoptability. The court was entitled to rely on her opinion. (In re Beatrice M. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1411, 1420-1421.)
The parents' argument that the court should have continued the matter for up to 180 days under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(3) because there were concerns about the twins' adoptability is unfounded. Section 366.26, subdivision (c)(3) applies where there is no identified or available prospective adoptive parent. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(3).) The twins were in a prospective adoptive home, and there were other approved homes available for placement. The parents have not shown a lack of substantial evidence to support the finding that the twins are adoptable.
DISPOSITION
The orders are affirmed.
WE CONCUR: BENKE, Acting P. J., McDONALD, J.