From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re K.T.

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division
Jul 24, 2008
2d Juv. B205282 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 24, 2008)

Opinion

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Superior Court County of Santa Barbara Nos. J1174916, J1174917, J1174918, Zel Canter, Judge

Catherine C. Czar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Richard T. Sr.

Maureen L. Keaney, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Defendant and Appellant Michelle B.

Daniel J. Wallace, Interim County Counsel, Toni Lorien, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondents.


COFFEE, J.

Michelle B. (mother) and Richard T. (father) appealed from an order of the juvenile court terminating their parental rights to their three children, K.T., Rickey T. and Michelle T., and establishing adoption as their permanent plan. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1).) They claimed that the juvenile court's finding of adoptability was not supported by substantial evidence.

All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

After the juvenile court issued its order, the children were removed from their foster home. The parents and Child Welfare Services (CWS) requested that we reverse the judgment terminating parental rights because the adoptive placement failed and the children are no longer likely to be adopted. We reverse and remand.

FACTS

All three children exhibit challenging behaviors. According to a permanency planning assessment dated November 8, 2007, K. (age 6) functions at her age level. However, she demonstrates low impulse control concerning her attempts to touch her siblings inappropriately. She requires constant supervision to prevent her inappropriate touching.

Rickey (age 5) functions at the level of a two-year-old. He has speech problems, such as stuttering and minor tics. His emotional distress is indicated by encopresis (fecal soiling), enuresis (bedwetting), aggressive outbursts, sleeping problems and hyperactivity. Michelle (age 3) displays a significant delay in receptive language skills and often mimicks the behavior of her older siblings.

Given the children's behavioral problems, the social worker reported that finding a foster home willing to work with all three children had been very difficult. The assessment concluded that the children were appropriate for adoptions planning under the condition that their current care providers remained willing to adopt them.

The foster parents were a mother and daughter who resided together and had previously adopted two boys. K., Rickey and Michelle were placed in their home on March 8, 2007, eight months before the section 366.26 hearing. The foster parents were committed to caring for the children and wished to keep the siblings together. They understood the children's behavioral problems, worked well with the service professionals and were receptive to their suggestions.

At the section 366.26 hearing on January 3, 2008, the juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that it was likely the children would be adopted, and terminated appellants' parental rights.

On April 30, 2008, the foster parents informed the social worker that they had lost their housing and requested the removal of all three children. On June 9, simultaneous with the filing of its reply brief, CWS filed a motion to augment the record to update the placement information. CWS declared that, due to the children's behavioral problems, it may have difficulty locating another adoptive home. CWS acknowledges that, at this time, it is not likely the children will be adopted.

We grant the motion of CWS to augment the record.

In its motion to augment, CWS indicated that it had contacted the parents' counsel to inquire if they would stipulate to augmentation of the record with the current placement information. On May 9, 2008 mother's attorney, Maureen L. Keaney, and father's attorney, Catherine C. Czar, each left voicemail messages indicating they would not oppose the motion. In June, both counsel notified us by letter that they joined in the request of CWS that the judgment be reversed.

DISCUSSION

Before terminating parental rights, a juvenile court must find by clear and convincing evidence that a minor is likely to be adopted and that no exceptions apply. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1); In re Lukas B. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1145, 1153-1154; In re Erik P. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 395, 400.)

The issue of adoptability focuses on the minor, and whether his or her age and physical and emotional condition may make it difficult to find an adoptive home. (In re Sarah M. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1642, 1649.) Adoptability concerns the minor's general suitability for adoption rather than the suitability of the prospective adoptive family, or the existence of such a family. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1); In re Y.R. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 99, 112; In re Josue G. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 725, 733; In re Brian P. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 616, 624.)

The three minors face serious ongoing behavioral challenges, requiring specialized attention, both at home and in school. This has made placement very difficult. The children's prospective adoptive parents were willing to undertake the singular efforts required for their care; however, that placement has failed.

The judgment (order terminating parental rights) is reversed and the matter remanded to the juvenile court.

We concur: GILBERT, P.J., PERREN, J.


Summaries of

In re K.T.

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division
Jul 24, 2008
2d Juv. B205282 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 24, 2008)
Case details for

In re K.T.

Case Details

Full title:In re K.T. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SANTA…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division

Date published: Jul 24, 2008

Citations

2d Juv. B205282 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 24, 2008)