Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County No. JUV089648. Bradley O. Snell, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.).
Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Joe S. Rank, County Counsel, and Sophia H. Choi, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RICHLI, J.
R.C. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights as to her 8-year-old son, A.T. (hereafter the child) pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. On appeal, Mother contends (1) the adoption assessment report was inadequate, and (2) she did not waive her right to claim the adoption assessment report was inadequate. We reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.
The child’s father (Father) is not a party to this appeal.
All future statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.
I
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The child came to the attention of the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) in November 2005 when a referral was received by police alleging that Father had left the child with two parolees who were under the influence of heroin and with syringes in easy reach of the child. At that time, Mother was incarcerated. The child had two older half brothers (hereafter brothers) whom the child had not seen in years. The child was not aware of the whereabouts of his brothers. The child was detained and placed in foster care, as relatives on both sides had criminal records.
Despite a thorough search by DPSS, the whereabouts of the brothers could not be determined at that time.
Further investigation revealed that Mother was incarcerated for drug-related offenses and had been for almost two years, with a projected release date of July 2006. In addition, Mother had a long history of contact with social services and law enforcement, as well as a lengthy history of substance abuse.
Mother was provided with services from November 1996 to February 1999 due to her substance abuse and neglect issues for the brothers, who were declared dependents of the court in November 1996. Dependency was eventually terminated as to the brothers in February 1999 due to Mother having successfully completed her case plan.
On November 28, 2005, a petition was filed on behalf of the child pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g) due to parental abuse and neglect. An amended petition was filed in December 2005, adding an allegation that Father’s whereabouts were unknown. Father was eventually apprehended and incarcerated.
Father also had a history of contact with law enforcement and social services. In fact, his parental rights as to his other two children were terminated in October 1996, after services were denied owing to one of the children having suffered irreversible brain damage due to shaken baby syndrome.
Meanwhile, the child was adjusting well in his foster home and had no behavioral problems. He was observed to be in good health and of normal physical and intellectual development. Socially, the child was observed to be a loner and withdrawn but was making friends in school.
The jurisdictional/dispositional hearing was held on February 28, 2006. The court found the allegations in the petition true as amended. The child was declared a dependent of the court. Services were denied to Mother and Father pursuant to section 361.5.
In March 2006, while conducting a home study investigation on the suitability of relative placement of the child in the home of maternal relatives, C.C. and J.C., social workers discovered the brothers, then ages 10 and 12, living in the home, where they had been since February 2001. Investigation revealed that J.C. was a registered sex offender, and the brothers were detained and placed in protective custody. The social worker attempted to place the brothers with the child but was unable to do so.
C.C. reported that J.C. had been convicted of lewd acts with a child in 1987 after J.C., who was drunk at a party, kissed a 15-year-old girl, but that no other incident had happened since.
On April 4, 2006, a petition on behalf of the brothers was filed pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b), (g), and (j). At the detention hearing, the court found no prima facie evidence to remove the children and placed the brothers in C.C.’s care on the condition the boys not be left alone with J.C. On May 4, 2006, that petition was dismissed without prejudice.
In a section 366.26 report, the social worker reported that the child was a healthy, happy boy, who was developmentally normal and prospering and was thriving in his prospective adoptive home. The child had been having frequent contact with his biological family as well as sibling visitation twice a month for one hour in a public setting. He had also had a supervised visit with Mother, who had recently been released from prison. The social worker opined that all of the child’s needs were being served in the home of his nonrelative caregivers and that the child and the caregivers had developed a happy, healthy bond. The caregivers were interested in adopting the child and providing him with a permanent home.
The caregivers/prospective adoptive parents had known the child while he was in a previous placement; when that placement failed, they pursued foster care licensing so as to adopt the child. According to the preliminary assessment report, there were positive reciprocal interactions between the child, the prospective adoptive parents, and the other children in the home. The prospective adoptive parents did not wish to enter into a postadoption contract agreement at that time but orally agreed to allow the child to have contact with his siblings and biological family. The child appeared to not understand adoption and stated that though he liked living with his caretakers, he wanted to go back to his family. However, the child did indicate that he preferred to stay with his prospective adoptive parents in the event he was unable to return to his family. The social worker recommended counseling for the child to address issues related to adoption and coping with grief and loss.
According to an addendum report dated October 26, 2006, the child had been having biweekly contact with members of his biological family, and his prospective adoptive parents expressed a willingness to continue those visits. The child had monitored visits with his brothers twice a month for one hour in a mutually agreed upon public setting and also had telephone contact with his siblings at least weekly. The child expressed contentment with being allowed to talk and play with his brothers. The prospective adoptive parents had expressed a commitment towards maintaining sibling relations for the child and were receptive to mediation to arrange and facilitate ongoing contact between the child and his brothers.
Father filed a section 388 petition on February 23, 2007. The court found that there was a change of circumstances and granted Father’s section 388 petition. Father was provided with six months of reunification services.
By May 2007, the child continued to be in good health and energetic at school. He was reported to be developing in all of his targeted areas of development and was interacting appropriately with his peers and enjoyed the social interactions. The child was adjusting very well in his foster home. The child’s therapist determined that he was doing well and he did not require further therapy, but it was available if needed. The child had expressed a desire to remain in his current foster home, where he continued to receive love, care, and support.
The child continued to have weekly visits with his brothers. According to the delivered service log, the child appeared excited to see his brothers on March 12, 2007, and his brothers were excited to see him. Upon entering the visitation room, the child began to play and toss a ball with his brothers. The child enjoyed his time with his brothers. Separation went well. The child had another pleasant visit with his brothers on April 16, 2007. The siblings played Monopoly and appeared to enjoy each other’s company. Separation went well. The May 1, 2007, visit lasted 90 minutes, and the boys spent the time playing various board games. On the May 3, 2007, visit when the child entered the visitation room, his eyes “beamed” and he ran and hugged his father and brothers. They played games, watched a movie, and ate chips. Their interaction was very lively and positive.
By August 2007, the child continued to be in good health and appeared to be happy and stable in his foster home. He had displayed appropriate social, motor, and cognitive skill development. He was able to follow instructions and was obedient to his foster parents. He had shown responsibility in keeping his bedroom tidy after he played with his toys. There were reports of the child’s disruptive behavior at school, but the foster mother had provided the child with encouragement and support, and these behaviors had decreased. The child had expressed his desire to be adopted by his foster parents. The child continued to have enjoyable weekly visits with his brothers and looked forward to these visits.
On November 19, 2007, Father’s services were terminated and a section 366.26 hearing was set. On December 17, 2007, Mother filed a notice of intent to file writ petition, which was subsequently withdrawn.
A section 366.26 report was filed on March 5, 2008. The social worker reported that the child appeared to be in good physical health. He had displayed appropriate social, motor, and cognitive skill development and was reaching his developmental milestones in a timely manner. He was compliant with his foster parents/prospective adoptive parents and had displayed responsibility in maintaining his bedroom. The child had established a loving and trusting relationship with his prospective adoptive family, and his desire was to be adopted by this family. The prospective adoptive parents had provided for the child’s medical, physical, educational, and emotional needs for almost two years and were committed to providing him with a safe and stable home. The social worker opined the child was appropriate for adoption. The child had maintained supervised appropriate visitation with his brothers twice a month for one hour in a public setting. The prospective adoptive parents had indicated that they would continue to support visitation between the child and his brothers even after adoption was finalized.
In an amended preliminary assessment report, the social worker reiterated that the prospective adoptive parents had been providing loving, appropriate care for the child, and the child had stated his desire to remain with his prospective adoptive parents and to be adopted by them. The prospective adoptive parents had facilitated biweekly visits between the child and his siblings. They had generally spent an hour playing together at a park. The child enjoyed visiting with his brothers. The prospective adoptive parents had continued to indicate that they would continue to support visitation between the child and his siblings even after adoption was finalized. They did not wish to enter into a postadoption contract agreement but were agreeable to the child having pictures and letters from his biological family and were also supportive of future efforts by the child to search for his birth parents when he is an adult.
On March 18, 2008, Mother filed a section 388 petition and supporting documents. A hearing was set for that same day. Following arguments, the section 388 petition was denied.
Thereafter, the section 366.26 hearing was held. Mother’s counsel asked the court to consider the sibling exception to adoption and argued against termination of parental rights. Minor’s counsel responded that “the siblings have been having visits all along.” Counsel further indicated she knew those contacts would continue after the adoption and that the prospective adoptive parents believed that the child’s contact with his siblings should continue. County counsel noted that the adoption assessment indicated “that the siblings have been provided biweekly visits with the child. They visit at a park and spend time together. The prospective adoptive parents are willing to continue that.” The juvenile stated, “I am confident that the . . . half sibling interaction and involvement will continue. It’s clear that the prospective adoptive parents desire that and continue to have the child meet with his siblings.” The court did not order the prospective adoptive parents to engage in an agreement with Mother as they had indicated they would, within reason, allow some contact. The court found the child adoptable and terminated parental rights. This appeal followed.
II
DISCUSSION
Mother contends DPSS failed to establish the child was adoptable because the assessment report was insufficient and failed to adequately assess the amount of and nature of the child’s contact with his brothers. Therefore, the court’s finding that the child was adoptable was not supported by substantial evidence as the court could not fully assess whether the sibling relationship exception applies in this case. We disagree.
Initially, we note Mother waived this issue by failing to object below to the sufficiency or adequacy of the adoption assessment in any respect. Courts have held that a parent forfeits a claim that an adoption assessment does not comply with the statutory requirements where the parent fails to object to the adequacy of the assessment in the juvenile court. (In re Crystal J. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 407, 411-412 [failure to object to assessment report at section 366.26 hearing waived the issue of the report’s inadequacy].) One rationale for this rule is that it is “‘“unfair to the trial judge and to the adverse party to take advantage of an error on appeal when it could easily have been corrected at the trial.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (In re Dakota S. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 494, 501, italics omitted.)
We see no reason why the general rule of waiver should not apply here. “Any other rule would ‘“‘permit a party to play fast and loose . . . by deliberately standing by without making an objection of which he is aware and thereby permitting the proceedings to go to a conclusion which he may acquiesce in, if favorable, and which he may avoid, if not.’” [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (In re Riva M. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 403, 412.)
In any event, aside from the waiver issue, the assessment report substantially complied with the statutory requirements, and the deficiencies, if any, did not constitute prejudicial error.
When services are terminated and a section 366.26 hearing is set, the juvenile court must direct the social services agency to prepare an adoption assessment report that, among other things, evaluates the child’s medical, developmental, scholastic, mental and emotional status, and includes a statement from the child concerning adoption unless the child is too young to give a meaningful response. (§§ 366.21, subd. (i)(1)(A)-(E), 366.22, subd. (b)(1); In re Crystal J., supra, 12 Cal.App.4th at p. 411.) The statute also requires that the assessment include “[a] review of the amount of and nature of any contact between the child and his or her parents . . . and other members of his or her extended family since the time of placement [including] . . . the child’s siblings . . . .” (§ 366.21, subd. (i)(1)(B).)
The purpose of the assessment report is to provide the juvenile court with information necessary to determine whether adoption is in a child’s best interests. (See In re Dakota S., supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at p. 496.) An assessment report need not be entirely complete as long as it is in substantial compliance with statutory requirements. (In re John F. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1365, 1378.) Where an assessment is deemed incomplete, the reviewing court looks at the totality of the evidence before it; deficiencies go to the weight of the evidence and may prove insignificant. (Ibid.)
Mother complains evidence of the amount of and nature of the child’s relationship with his brothers was lacking. The record belies this contention. The section 366.26 report noted that the child continued to maintain supervised visitation with his brothers twice a month for one hour in a public setting and that there were no concerns with visitation. The assessment report noted that the prospective adoptive parents facilitated biweekly visits between the child and his brothers. They had typically spent an hour playing together at a park. This information was sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement of the nature of the contacts and the amount of the sibling contacts.
Even if we were to find the section 366.26 and assessment reports inadequate, Mother cannot prevail because she cannot show prejudice. The reports, coupled with the other various reports submitted by DPSS, constituted substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s findings that the child was likely to be adopted and adoption was in his best interests and that the sibling relationship exception to adoption did not apply to prevent the termination of parental rights. Where there is other evidence to support the finding the child is likely to be adopted, deficiencies in a permanency assessment constitute harmless error. (In re Dakota S., supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at p. 503.) “[E]ven if the assessment is incomplete in some respects, the court will look to the totality of the evidence; deficiencies will go to the weight of the evidence. . . .” (In re John F., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 1378.) Even where the responsible agency failed altogether to provide the juvenile court with the preliminary adoption assessment, no reversible error was found because the juvenile court received, in other forms, the information that should have been contained in the preliminary assessment. (In re Dakota S., at pp. 496, 503.) Here, as set out, ante, part I, the juvenile court had been supplied with all the necessary information in the various reports to show the nature of and amount of the child’s contact with his siblings.
III
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: McKINSTER, Acting P.J., KING, J.