Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. Nos. JD220334, JD220335
SIMS, J.
Appellant, mother of the minors J. V. (six years old) and L. V. (eight years old), appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.) Appellant claims there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s finding that the minors were adoptable. We shall affirm.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
BACKGROUND
Removal, Detention, and Placement
In March 2004, Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (the Department) removed the minors from their parents’ home, alleging severe domestic abuse. Initially placed separately, after 10 days the minors were placed together in a foster home. Two months later, they were declared dependents of the juvenile court and the family was given services. On August 16, 2004, appellant gave birth to the boys’ sister, Jessica, who was born with fetal alcohol syndrome. Jessica also was removed from her parents.
The boys were the youngest of eight children born to appellant, all of whom were removed from the home. The six older children, however, share a different father and are not the subject of this appeal.
In February 2005, the paternal grandparents’ home was approved for placement. The boys were not, however, placed in the grandparents’ home. In July 2005, the court terminated the father’s visitation with the minors as well as his reunification services. Appellant’s services were separately terminated in September 2005, though she maintained visitation with the children.
The record provides no explanation for why the boys were not placed with their grandparents at this time.
In her January 2006 report, the minors’ social worker indicated the children were both in school and benefiting from the structured environment school provided them. The boys’ foster mother described them as having age-appropriate tantrums, but offered that she had no difficulties with their behavior. Based on her own observations, the social worker described the boys as “happy, outgoing children who are very talkative . . . as well as very active.” An adoptive home had not yet been found for the boys, but the social worker remained hopeful and requested, and received, a 120-day continuance for the selection and implementation hearing.
In May 2006, a complaint was made on the foster home in which the minors had been living since January 2005. As a result, the children were removed from the home. The minors were moved to a “respite home” for eight days until they were placed with a prospective-adoptive family along with their infant sister.
A month later, the minors’ social worker reported that the boys were doing well with the prospective-adoptive family. Nevertheless, on July 12, 2006, the prospective-adoptive family asked to have the boys removed, claiming they were “overwhelmed and could no longer deal with the boys’ behaviors.” The family described J. V. as “aggressive” and “defiant,” noting that he did not “transition well from one activity to another.” They described L. V. as exhibiting “some of those behaviors,” without further explanation. The family nevertheless wanted to keep the infant Jessica.
Jessica thus remained with the prospective-adoptive family and the boys were removed. Despite the family’s description of the minors, and request to have them removed, the social worker found them still to be generally adoptable and recommended terminating parental rights at the September 2006 hearing. The court disagreed with the social worker’s assessment, and on September 4, 2006, found the minors were not adoptable.
In October 2006, the minors’ paternal uncle contacted their social worker and expressed an interest in having the children placed with him. A month later, however, he changed his mind, saying the paternal grandparents would be a better placement because he was still raising his own children.
A short time later, in December 2006, the paternal grandparents came forward a second time to request a home evaluation. In February 2007, their home was approved, but the grandparents had changed their minds because, they explained, the boys’ father had expressed an interest in reunifying with the children. After the social worker explained the goal was to have the boys adopted, that they would not be reunified with their father, the grandparents said they did not believe they were healthy or wealthy enough to care for two young boys. The boys thus remained in their foster home.
By March 2007, the minors’ social worker reported the minors were adjusting well to their foster placement. L. V., then in the first grade, was described as being a good student, although he admitted he did not like doing homework. L. V. played with age appropriate toys and watched age appropriate television programming. He enjoyed playing with his friends at school, and enjoyed riding his bicycle and scooter. J. V. was described as less adaptive, “defiant,” and “aggressive.” He also continued in speech therapy for a noted speech deficit. Both boys were in good health, and a prospective-adoptive family had been found.
Three months later, in June 2007, the social worker reported that pre-placement visits with the prospective-adoptive family were stopped. According to the social worker’s report, the prospective-adoptive family was “unable to keep up with the boys and meet their needs.”
Still described as an extremely active, defiant child who required “constant supervision,” J. V. continued to receive speech therapy in school for “poor articulation.” L. V. was described as a good student with “excellent behavior.” And, while L. V. was also an active and headstrong child, he was more easily redirected than his brother. Neither child was participating in counseling and a new prospective-adoptive family had been found, for which a disclosure meeting was scheduled the following month, July 2007.
In August 2007, the minors began pre-placement visits with the new prospective-adoptive family. The visits were going well and the minors, as well as the family, were eager to proceed with placement. Placement would have to wait, however, because the prospective-adoptive family lived outside of Sacramento County and the court would first have to issue an out-of-county placement order.
In September 2007, appellant objected to the out-of-county placement and requested a hearing on the issue. Appellant then filed a section 388 petition, seeking to reverse the court’s order terminating services. Both matters were set for hearing.
By January 2008, the minors’ prospective-adoptive family had been driving three hours every weekend for five months in order to pick up the boys in Sacramento and spend the weekend with them. The boys spent Thanksgiving and Christmas with the prospective-adoptive family, and they talked to their prospective-adoptive parents every day on the telephone. The prospective-adoptive parents helped the minors with their homework and were facilitating visitation with the boys’ younger sister, Jessica. The prospective-adoptive parents even agreed to facilitate letter, phone, and photo contact between the boys and their five, older half siblings.
In her January 2008 report, the minors’ social worker explained that the boys had “tested” the prospective-adoptive family’s limits, and the children’s behavior had consistently been met with firm rules, and after five months of pre-placement visits, the prospective-adoptive family “remained extremely committed to the children and [had] not wavered in their commitment to permanency.”
January 2008 Selection and Implementation Hearing
On January 31, 2008, the trial court held a section 366.26 selection and implementation hearing, as well as an evidentiary hearing on appellant’s section 388 petition, and her objection to the out-of-county placement. The court heard testimony from appellant, the boys’ father, L. V., and five of the minors’ older, half siblings.
In chambers, L. V. testified that he enjoyed his visits with appellant, which occurred at “fun places” like Burger King and McDonald’s. When asked, he said that he wished he could visit appellant more often and would be sad if he could not see her anymore.
L. V. also testified that he did not like living in his foster home, though he could not remember why, and would rather have a more permanent place to live (though he subsequently contradicts that statement by telling the court it was not important to him that he have a home to call his own). When asked by the court if he had “any idea of other permanent places that [he] would like to live[,]” L. V. responded: “No.” On further questioning by the court, L. V. remembered spending the holidays with the prospective-adoptive family in Santa Cruz, and said that the visit was “[g]ood.” He described getting “a lot of Christmas toys,” and said he and his brother had fun, that he liked the family, and they were fun.
Ultimately, the court denied appellant’s 388 petition, granted the out-of-county placement, and terminated appellant’s parental rights. In support of his decision to terminate parental rights, the trial court found the minors adoptable. The court relied on the fact that the prospective-adoptive family had spent considerable time with the boys, driving to and from Sacramento every weekend, maintained daily telephone contact with the boys, helped the boys with their homework, and were obviously interested in adopting the boys. The court also found termination of parental rights would not be detrimental. Appellant appeals that ruling.
DISCUSSION
Appellant contends the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of adoptability by clear and convincing evidence. Specifically, she argues the minors are neither generally nor specifically adoptable because: (1) there was difficulty finding placement, (2) there is a history of failed placement, (3) the boys have behavioral problems, and (4) the minors have not bonded sufficiently with their prospective adoptive family. Mother’s claim is without merit.
“In order for the court to select and implement adoption as the permanent plan, it must find, by clear and convincing evidence, the minor will likely be adopted if parental rights are terminated.” (In re Tabatha B. (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1164; § 366.26, subd. (c)(1).) “All that is required is clear and convincing evidence of the likelihood that adoption will be realized within a reasonable time.” (In re Zeth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 396, 406.) “Usually, the issue of adoptability focuses on the minor, ‘e.g., whether the minor’s age, physical condition, and emotional state make it difficult to find a person willing to adopt the minor.’ (In re Sarah M. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1642, 1649.) However, ‘in some cases a minor who ordinarily might be considered unadoptable due to age, poor physical health, physical disability, or emotional instability is nonetheless likely to be adopted because a prospective adoptive family has been identified as willing to adopt the child.’ (Id. at p. 1650.)” (In re Brandon T. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1408.) We review the court’s finding of adoptability under the substantial evidence standard. (In re B. D. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1218, 1232.)
Appellant argues at length that the minors are not generally adoptable; regardless, there is substantial evidence they are specifically adoptable. A prospective-adoptive family has been found and after a long period of pre-placement visits, the family remains committed to adopting the boys. Appellant nevertheless argues the boys are not sufficiently attached to the prospective-adoptive family to find them specifically adoptable.
In support of her claim, appellant relies on L. V.’s testimony at the section 366.26 hearing wherein he failed to mention the family by name, and failed to independently identify their home as a place he would like to live permanently. Contrary to appellant’s claim, there is no requirement that minors be attached to prospective-adoptive parents in order to find them adoptable.
In any event, appellant ignores the considerable evidence from which the court could reasonably infer the boys were bonding with their prospective-adoptive family: (1) the boys, as well as their foster mother, had daily telephone contact with the prospective parents for five months prior to the hearing; (2) the prospective parents assisted the boys with their homework over the telephone; (3) they drove three hours every weekend in order to spend the weekend with the boys; and (4) the boys’ foster mother reported that the minors were, in fact, anxious to move in with their new family, often crying when they had to leave the family.
Appellant also argues there is no guarantee the prospective family will adopt the minors because they have not yet lived with the children. A guarantee, however, is not required; the law requires only that the court find the children are “likely to be adopted within a reasonable period of time.” (In re Tabatha B., supra, 45 Cal.App.4th at p. 1164; § 366.26, subd. (c)(1); italics added.) The amount and duration of contact between the minors and the prospective-adoptive parents and the fact that the prospective-adoptive parents remained committed to adoption warranted the juvenile court’s finding in this regard.
There are no legal impediments to the minors’ adoption. The prospective-adoptive parents have been approved, the pre-placement visits have been successful, and there is evidence the children are anxious to be placed. The minors have already “tested” the prospective-adoptive parents’ boundaries, and the prospective-adoptive parents remain committed to them. Thus, while it may have taken some time for the Department to find a family for this pair of siblings, they have now found a family that is committed to adopting the minors.
Accordingly, we find there is substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s decision to find the minors adoptable and terminate appellant’s parental rights.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court order is affirmed.
We concur: BLEASE, Acting P. J., CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.