Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. CK58304, Stephen Marpet, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.)
Karen B. Stalter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Tracey F. Dodds, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
VOGEL, Acting P.J.
This is a father’s appeal from a dependency court order terminating his parental rights over his daughter. We affirm.
FACTS
M.D. was born in August 2004 to teenage parents -- her father, H.D., was then 17 years old and incarcerated on robbery charges, and her mother, M.C., then 15, was a dependent child and on probation (M.C. is not a party to this appeal). Three-month-old M.D. was taken into protective custody in December (by the Orange County Social Services Agency) following M.C.’s arrest for a violation of the terms of her probation. A petition was filed and sustained in Orange County, and the matter was transferred to Los Angeles in January 2005.
Reunification services were ordered and by May 2005, the dependency court had approved a case plan for both parents. In August, the court ordered M.D. placed with M.C. in a group home where M.C. had been placed. Meanwhile, H.D. (who had been released at some point) was arrested and back in custody by the end of the year.
In March 2006, the Department of Children and Family Services reported that M.D. and M.C. had left the group home and moved in with M.C.’s sister, but that arrangement did not “work out” and the sister put mother and child on a bus to San Bernardino, where they moved in with M.C.’s aunt and uncle, Tyrone and A.C., who operated a licensed day care center at their home.
In May, the Department filed a subsequent petition on behalf of M.D. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 342) and reported to the court that M.D. and M.C. had been asked to leave the aunt’s home and had gone to stay with M.D.’s paternal great-grandmother, Ruby L. H.D. was out of custody, visiting M.C., fighting with her in front of M.D., and screaming profanities at Ruby. By May 8, M.D. had been taken into protective custody, and on May 11, the Department was ordered to determine whether the child could be placed with Mr. and Mrs. C., and M.D. was placed with them shortly thereafter. The section 342 petition was sustained in June.
All section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
By July, H.D. had withdrawn entirely from the reunification process and had not made any attempt to visit his daughter. In September, the court terminated reunification services for both parents. M.D. was still living with Mr. and Mrs. C. and they were taking steps toward adoption. A number of safety issues at the C.’s house were investigated and by the beginning of 2007 Mr. and Mrs. C. had become “rather defensive” and objected to the Department’s unannounced visits. Mr. and Mrs. C. nevertheless continued to complete the adoption paperwork, and the Department reported that “although they may be resentful of the measures taken by the Department[, they were] committed to the adoption.”
In February, the dependency court terminated both parents’ parental rights and found it was likely that M.D. would be adopted. H.D. appeals.
DISCUSSION
H.D. does not contest the finding of parental unfitness but does challenge the termination order on the ground that there were unresolved issues about the suitability of Mr. and Mrs. C.’s home, claiming the dependency court abused its discretion. We disagree.
The question before the court was M.D.’s adoptability, not whether she is presently placed with the people who may ultimately adopt her. (§ 366.26, subd. (c); In re Scott M. (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 839, 844; In re Sarah M. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1642, 1649 [the focus is on the child and whether her age and physical and emotional condition will make adoption difficult, not on the suitability of a possible adoptive parent]; In re Brian P. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 616, 624.) Given the limited nature of H.D.’s challenge, the only question properly before us on this appeal is whether the dependency court’s adoptability finding is supported by substantial evidence. (In re Marina S. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 158, 165; In re Baby Boy L. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 596, 610.) It is.
The Department’s May 2005 adoption assessment found that M.D. is likely to be adopted, and there is nothing in the record to suggest otherwise. Remarkably, she has no problems that would make it difficult to find adoptive parents for her -- she is physically healthy, developmentally age appropriate, and personable. She relates well to Mr. and Mrs. C. and to others. A social worker’s visit to the C.’s home in January 2007 resulted in a report of a happy and healthy child who laughs, plays and sings with her cousins.
In short, the decision about whether Mr. and Mrs. C. should be permitted to adopt M.D. will be made by the dependency court at a later date, not on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
We concur: ROTHSCHILD, J., JACKSON, J.
Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.