Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Super. Ct. No. DP013769, John C. Gastelum, Judge.
Neale B. Gold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Benjamin P. de Mayo, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Jeannie Su, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
No appearance for the Minor.
OPINION
MOORE, J.
The mother contends a lack of substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding the minor is adoptable. We affirm.
I
FACTS
The minor, Brianna H., is under two years old. The mother, Michelle H., suffers from symptoms of depression “which impair her ability to provide safe, effective and appropriate care for the child, and place the child at significant risk of harm.” Both the mother and Brian R., the father, “have lived a transient lifestyle, lacking stability and consistency, as evidenced by their residing in shelters and being homeless for periods of time. At this time the child’s parents are homeless and are unable to provide a stable and safe residence for the infant, Brianna, placing the child at risk of abuse and neglect. The child’s parents have no financial resources and no reasonable plan to provide for the necessary items to care for a newborn infant, placing the child’s health and safety at risk of harm. [¶] The child’s mother failed to participate in prenatal care on a regular and consistent basis while pregnant with the child, Brianna thus placing the child’s health at risk. The child’s mother has a drug related criminal history dating back to 1994 for under the influence of a controlled substance and controlled substance paraphernalia. The child’s father has a criminal history to include assault with a deadly weapon, battery, threaten crime with intent to terrorize, and sexual assault, which demonstrates a propensity for violence and an inability to maintain a safe and stable environment for the child.”
When the minor was born and shortly thereafter, she showed signs of numerous medical problems. She was observed to shake often, had hypertrophy of the left breast, tear duct stenosis and esophageal reflux. Her foster mother reported the minor repeatedly puts her right hand behind her head while turning her head and arching her back. When she was six months old, she underwent a developmental screening. She passed the vision, hearing, fine motor, speech and language screens. As to gross motor, the report states: “borderline; right head tilt, not sitting up yet, refer to RCOC [Regional Center of Orange County] for evaluation.”
Several months later, the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) reported: “On August 6, 2007, Esmeralda Hillhouse, Adoptions Supervisor . . . reported that it was likely that the child would be adopted. Brianna is a very attractive fifteen month old girl of Caucasian origin. She has striking features with beautiful eyes. She appears to be developing with age appropriate skill in her gross and fine motor areas. She is very friendly and engages easily with unfamiliar persons. Brianna travels well, and likes to go to parks/playgrounds/malls and reportedly loves books.”
The latest SSA report, prepared on October 22, 2007, refers only to immunizations received at her one-year well-baby checkup. The report states the minor receives both weekly pediatric therapy and monthly physical therapy by two different therapists. After receiving physical therapy on her neck for six months, she was “showing much improvement.” Both therapists reported the minor “is developing age appropriately.” One of the therapists said she is concerned about the minor’s limited attention span which “may be an issue as she develops and gets older.”
The prospective adoptive parents submitted an application for adoption and a home study is in the process of being performed. Preliminary information is that the prospective adoptive parents fostered and later adopted their six-year-old son through SSA. SSA’s October 22, 2007 report states: “They are a loving couple that appreciates the individual qualities that each of them brings to the relationship. They approach major decisions together, while allowing each other to make smaller, individual decisions.” He has an executive position and she is a “stay at home mother.” The Department of Justice reported no findings regarding either prospective adoptive parent.
The minor was placed with the couple when she was eight days old. They have provided a “permanent, stable and loving home” for the minor and have fully integrated her into their lives. “The child was observed to be happy, secure and safe” with the prospective adoptive parents.
SSA recommended to the court “that the Court find that there is clear and convincing evidence that it is likely the child will be adopted, and that the Court order the parental rights of the child’s parents, in relation to the child, be terminated . . . .”
On October 22, 2007, the juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence it is likely the minor, Brianna H., will be adopted, that the provisions of the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivisions “(c) (1) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) DO NOT APPLY,” and that termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the minor. Parental rights of both parents were terminated.
II
DISCUSSION
“If 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.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1).) “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 some other family. [Citation.]” (In re Sarah M. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1642, 1649-1650.)
“The juvenile court may terminate parental rights only if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that it is likely the child will be adopted within a reasonable time. [Citations.]” (In re Jerome D. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1204.) “‘“Clear and convincing” evidence requires a finding of high probability. The evidence must be so clear as to leave no substantial doubt. It must be sufficiently strong to command the unhesitating assent of every reasonable mind. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (In re Amelia S. (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1060, 1065.) On appeal, we review the juvenile court’s decision for substantial evidence. (In re Jennilee T. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 212, 223.)
The court’s adoptability findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 575.) The issue of adoptability focuses on the child, specifically, whether the child’s age and physical and emotional condition are likely to make it difficult to find an adoptive placement. (In re Sarah M., supra, 22 Cal.App.4th at p. 1649.)
Here, the minor is very young, attractive, happy and secure. She is developing with age appropriate skills. The early physical problems she exhibited have either resolved or are improving. With this set of facts, we must conclude substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding by clear and convincing evidence that she is adoptable.
III
DISPOSITION
We affirm the findings and order of the juvenile court.
WE CONCUR:
RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J., O’LEARY, J.