Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, No. NJ13254E-F, Harry M. Elias, Judge.
McINTYRE, J.
Priscilla G. appeals a juvenile court judgment terminating her parental rights to her minor children Cynthia S. and E.S. (together the minors) under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. (Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) Priscilla challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court's finding the minors are adoptable. We affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In March 2006 two-year-old Cynthia and one-year-old E.S. became dependents of the juvenile court under section 300, subdivision (b) based on findings their younger sibling was born with a positive toxicology for drugs. Priscilla left the minors and their three older siblings with the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) because she was unable to care for them. When Priscilla did not reunify with the minors after six months of services, the court set a section 366.26 selection and implementation hearing.
Agency assessed the minors as adoptable because they were young, healthy and developing normally. One foster parent described the minors as aggressive, possessive, controlling and easily irritated. E.S. had frequent tantrums. Sixteen prospective adoptive families had expressed interest in adopting a sibling pair like the minors. Several months after the assessment was prepared, the minors were placed with caregivers who wanted to adopt them. The minors had adjusted well to their new home and had no serious behavior problems.
At a contested selection and implementation hearing, the court found the minors were adoptable and none of the exceptions to adoption applied to preclude terminating parental rights.
DISCUSSION
Priscilla challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court's finding the minors were adoptable. She asserts the court's finding was premature because: (1) the minors were previously in three different foster care placements and had been placed in their prospective adoptive home for only a month; and (2) the minors had a history of aggressiveness.
The court can terminate parental rights only if it determines by clear and convincing evidence the minor is likely to be adopted. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1).) (Effective January 1, 2008, the Legislature amended and renumbered section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1). (Stats. 2006, ch. 838, § 52.) Because the proceedings at issue here occurred before the statutory change, we refer to the earlier version of the statute.) The statute requires clear and convincing evidence of the likelihood adoption will be realized within a reasonable time. (In re Zeth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 396, 406.) In determining adoptability, the focus is on whether a child's age, physical condition and emotional state will create difficulty in locating a family willing to adopt. (§ 366.22, subd. (b)(3); In re David H. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 368, 379.) "Usually, the fact that a prospective adoptive parent has expressed interest in adopting the minor is evidence that the minor's age, physical condition, mental state, and other matters relating to the child are not likely to dissuade individuals from adopting the minor. In other words, a prospective adoptive parent's willingness to adopt generally indicates the minor is likely to be adopted within a reasonable time either by the prospective adoptive parent or by some other family." (In re Sarah M. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1642, 1649-1650.) We review a finding of adoptability for substantial evidence. (In re Josue G. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 725, 732.)
We are puzzled by the argument raised in this appeal in light of the uncontradicted evidence that the minors are young, healthy and developmentally on target. They are doing well in a prospective adoptive home where their caregivers are fully aware of their needs and behavior issues, yet remain committed to adopting them. Even if this placement failed, Agency has identified 16 other families willing to adopt a sibling set like the minors. Our review of the record suggests this appeal is frivolous. Counsel should have filed a brief in accordance with In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952 because ample and substantial evidence supports the court's finding the minors are adoptable.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J.IRION, J.