Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Superior Court County of Santa Barbara Nos. J-1252209, J-1252210, James E. Herman, Judge
Lee Gulliver, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dennis A. Marshall, County Counsel, Toni Lorien, Deputy, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
GILBERT, P.J.
P.P. ("Mother") appeals an order of the juvenile court declaring that her children A.P. and J.P. are adoptable and terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1).) We affirm.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 1, 2007, Santa Barbara County Child Welfare Services ("CWS") filed a dependency petition on behalf of two-year-old J. and her half-sibling, four-month-old A. CWS alleged that Mother abused drugs and alcohol, had a criminal record involving possession of drugs, among other things, was involved in domestic violence with a boyfriend, and had lost her parental rights to her two older children. CWS also alleged that A. suffers from Down's Syndrome and was born without a left foot. Mother did not know the whereabouts of the respective fathers. (§ 300, subds. (a), (b), (g), (j).)
The fathers did not appear in the trial court and are not parties to this appeal.
The juvenile court ordered the children detained and on October 22, 2007, CWS placed them in the care of licensed foster parents, the R. family. On November 26, 2007, the court sustained the allegations of an amended dependency petition, continued the children as dependent children in foster care, and ordered CWS to provide family reunification services to Mother.
The family reunification services plan required Mother to participate in substance abuse treatment, randomly test for drug use, participate in parent education, and obtain stable housing and employment, among other things. Mother did not substantially comply with the services plan and continued to use illegal drugs. On July 3, 2008, the juvenile court terminated family reunification services and set the matter for a permanent plan hearing. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1).)
On February 10, 2009, the juvenile court held a contested permanent plan hearing. It received evidence from CWS reports and testimony from social workers. Evidence reflects that the children had been residing with the R. family since October 22, 2007, and were thriving. Although the foster parents had financial concerns regarding adoption, they were assured by the social workers' discussions of financial resources available for A.'s treatment. The foster parents passed background checks and no legal impediments exist that preclude their adoption of the children. The court then concluded by clear and convincing evidence that J. and A. are adoptable, and it terminated parental rights.
Mother appeals and contends the juvenile court erred by finding A. to be adoptable because there is no clear and convincing evidence that she is adoptable within a reasonable time.
DISCUSSION
Mother argues that CWS did not provide a sufficient adoption assessment report containing statutorily specified information. (§ 366.21, subd. (i)(1)(A)-(G).) She asserts that the adoption assessment is essential given A.'s serious medical and developmental issues. (In re Valerie W. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1, 13-14.) Mother points out that the R. family had not yet submitted an adoption application nor had the family members been interviewed, among other things.
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. (In re Gregory A. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1554, 1561.) "Likely," as stated in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1), means "more probable than not." (In re Y.R. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 99, 108, disapproved on other grounds by In re S.B. (2009) 46 Cal.4th 529, 537, fn. 5.) In making its determination, the court must consider the child's age, physical condition, and emotional state, and decide whether these factors may make it difficult to find an adoptive home. (Gregory A., at p. 1561.) A minor who may be considered unadoptable due to age, physical or mental disability or emotional instability may be adoptable because a prospective adoptive family has been identified. (In re Brandon T. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1408.) Upon appeal, we grant the finding of adoptability "the benefit of every reasonable inference and resolve any evidentiary conflicts in favor of affirming." (Gregory A., at p. 1562.)
The finding of the juvenile court that J. and A. are likely to be adopted within a reasonable time is supported by clear and convincing evidence.
At the section 366.26 hearing, CWS provided evidence in its reports that J. did not have any medical, developmental, or educational delays and was thriving in the care of the R. family. They are licensed foster parents and the social worker knew of no legal impediment to their adoption of the children. (In re Brandon T., supra, 164 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1410 [where no legal impediment to adoption exists, no legal requirement of an adoption home study prior to termination of parental rights].)
CWS also provided evidentiary reports regarding A. With the participation of the foster parents, she received treatment from the Tri-Counties Regional Center, including physical and occupational therapy. As A. grew and was able to stand, her orthopedist planned to prescribe a prosthetic foot. The foster parents described A. as happy in their care. By the section 366.26 hearing, they had cared for the children for nearly 16 months. Although the foster parents initially wavered in their desire to adopt the children, they decided to adopt after learning of financial resources available to assist in A.'s care. A prospective parent's willingness to adopt generally indicates that the child is likely to be adopted within a reasonable time either by the prospective adoptive parent or some other family. (In re Gregory A., supra, 126 Cal.App.4th 1554, 1562.) Moreover, the CWS social worker testified that another family had expressed interest in adopting the children.
The information provided in CWS reports and the testimony of the CWS social workers at the section 366.26 hearing substantially comply with statutory requirements and provide a sufficient basis for the decision to terminate parental rights.
The judgment (order) is affirmed.
We concur: YEGAN, J., PERREN, J.