Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Harry Elias, Judge. Super. Ct. No. NJ013218
McINTYRE, J.
Magdalena M. appeals a judgment terminating her parental rights to her minor son Carlos M. under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 (all further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated). Magdalena challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court's findings that Carlos was adoptable. We affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In September 2005 the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) filed a petition on behalf of two-year-old Carlos under section 300, subdivision (b). The petition alleged Magdalena suffered from a drug addiction and was unable to provide Carlos with adequate care and support. The court detained Carlos in out-of-home care and subsequently declared him a dependent of the court.
The social worker reported that Carlos appeared to be suffering from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Carlos participated in a developmental screening program that revealed he exhibited symptoms indicative of a possible autistic disorder. In addition, he showed moderate to severe delays in his mental development and moderate delays in his motor skills.
During the first six months of the dependency proceeding, Magdalena did not participate in services or visit Carlos. The Agency placed Carlos in the home of his maternal grandmother along with two of his half siblings. The grandmother was not certain as to whether she would be able to care for Carlos on a permanent basis. Carlos received services to address his behavioral and developmental issues. Carlos did not speak but his service provider indicated he had made progress with his behavior.
At the six-month review hearing, the court terminated Magdalena's reunification services. Carlos's father continued to receive services for an additional six months but by the 12-month review hearing, the court terminated all reunification services for the parents and scheduled a selection and implementation hearing under section 366.26.
In the months before the section 366.26 hearing, Carlos consistently participated in developmental and behavioral services. He underwent a psychological evaluation that indicated he continued to suffer from moderate to severe delays in mental development. Carlos also withdrew from interpersonal contact with others. The examiner believed Carlos suffered from some form of autism and suggested reevaluating him for a more certain diagnosis when Carlos was five years old. Despite the signs of autism, Carlos's behavioral problems had improved and he regularly attended preschool. Carlos still did not have verbal skills but showed some signs of affection toward family members.
In October 2006 the Agency placed Carlos with his maternal aunt and three cousins. According to a section 366.26 assessment report, Carlos's physical health was good and he was not taking any medications. He remained nonverbal and had difficulty with toilet training, however, he had learned to conduct every day tasks such as washing his hands, eating with utensils and drinking from a straw. The maternal aunt remained committed to adopting Carlos. She loved Carlos, was aware of his special needs and wanted him to have a good life. The aunt had been approved as a relative caregiver and had received criminal and child abuse clearances. The social worker believed the aunt would receive an approved adoptive home study with no difficulty. In the event the maternal aunt could not adopt Carlos, there was one other family willing to adopt a child like Carlos in San Diego County and the social worker further identified nine other prospective adoptive families outside of the county.
At the section 366.26 selection and implementation hearing, the court found by clear and convincing evidence that Carlos was adoptable and that none of the exceptions to adoption in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) applied to preclude termination of parental rights. The court terminated Magdalena's parental rights and referred Carlos for adoptive placement.
DISCUSSION
Magdalena challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court's finding that Carlos was adoptable. Specifically, Magdalena asserts Carlos suffers from severe developmental delays and autism that render him unadoptable and there is no evidence suggesting Carlos would be adopted within a reasonable time.
A
When reviewing a court's finding that a minor is adoptable, we apply the substantial evidence test. (In re Josue G. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 725, 732; In re Lukas B. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1145, 1154.) If, on the entire record, there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the juvenile court, we uphold those findings. We do not pass on the credibility of witnesses, attempt to resolve conflicts in the evidence or evaluate the weight of the evidence. (In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 52.) Rather, we "accept the evidence most favorable to the order as true and discard the unfavorable evidence as not having sufficient verity to be accepted by the trier of fact." (Id. at p. 53.) The appellant has the burden of showing that there is no evidence of a sufficiently substantial nature to support the finding or order. (In re L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 947; In re Geoffrey G. (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 412, 420.)
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).) 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 re Amelia S. (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1060, 1065.) 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 the court's finding of adoptability for substantial evidence. (In re Josue G., supra, 106 Cal.App.4th at p. 732; In re Lukas B., supra, 79 Cal.App.4th at p. 1154.)
B
The social worker's assessment report concluded Carlos is adoptable. Carlos is an attractive young boy in good physical health. However, his psychological evaluation shows he suffers from moderate to severe developmental delays and there is a strong likelihood that Carlos suffers from autism. Carlos has been participating in programs to address his needs and he regularly attends preschool. The evidence shows he has made some progress with his behavioral problems, and he enjoys going to school and playing with other children. Despite his significant developmental problems, Carlos was placed in the home of a relative caregiver. At the time the social worker prepared the section 366.26 report, the caregiver remained committed to adopting Carlos. In the event the caregiver cannot adopt Carlos, the record shows there are dedicated families willing to adopt a child needing special care and attention. The social worker reported there are 10 prospective adoptive families interested in a child like Carlos, one in San Diego and nine families outside of the county. The evidence of the additional families is relevant to evaluating the likelihood of a child's adoption. (In re Jerome D. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1205.) Given this evidence, the social worker believed Carlos is generally adoptable. The court was entitled to find the social worker's opinion credible and give great weight to the assessment. (In re Casey D., supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at p. 53; In re Beatrice M. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1411, 1420-1421 [social worker may be expert in assessment and selection of permanent plan for dependent minor].) We cannot reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. (In re Casey D., supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at pp. 52-53.) Substantial evidence supports the court's finding Carlos was likely to be adopted.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
IRION, J.