Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Super. Ct. No. DP012486 Dennis Keough, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.)
Leslie A. Barry, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Benjamin P. de Mayo, County Counsel, and Karen L. Christensen, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
SILLS, P. J.
Patricia D. appeals from the judgment terminating parental rights to her daughter, Patti. She claims there is no substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that Patti is adoptable. We find no error and affirm.
FACTS
Patti V. was detained at birth by the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) because both she and her mother, Patricia, had positive toxicology screens. Patricia had three other children who were dependents of the juvenile court and living with their maternal grandmother when Patti was born. The juvenile court declared Patti a dependent and placed her in the emergency shelter home of Lisa and Jon D. (D’s) Reunification services were offered to Patricia.
This case involved an alleged father, a statutorily presumed father, and a biological father. None of them is involved in this appeal.
In a report prepared for the six-month review hearing, originally scheduled for June 2006, the social worker stated that Patti was showing the effects of her prenatal exposure to drugs. She had “generalized weakness throughout her body”; she was diagnosed as having 50 percent delay in her “cognitive, communication and social emotional skills,” up to 50 percent delay in her “fine motor skills,” and 100 percent delay in her “adaptive daily living skills.” Patti was receiving both physical and occupational therapy, and was taking Phenobarbital to help with the drug withdrawal episodes. The emergency shelter placement had been converted to a foster placement, and Patti remained in the D.’s home. “The child is very bonded to the foster mother and appears to experience stress when she is with others and foster mother is within viewing range of the child.” The D.’s applied for, and were granted, de facto parent standing.
The six-month review hearing was continued several times and was ultimately held in September 2006. The juvenile court terminated reunification services and set a permanent plan selection hearing for January 2007. That hearing was also continued several times to June 2007.
SSA reported the “Matching Coordinator in Adoptions” had opined that Patti was “highly adoptable” because she is young and female, had no family history of mental illness, and her “developmental delays and medical condition are not severe.” The D.’s were committed to adopting Patti. They had cared for her since she was five days old and had successfully dealt with her special needs. “[F]or the fist two weeks [of her life,] baby[] Patti was having extreme withdrawals and had to sleep on Ms. D[‘s] chest for attempts at comforting the child. The child suffered from severe tremors, which looked like seizures, and the child had feeding difficulties. The baby was unable to coordinate her breath[ing], suck[ing] and swallowing reflexes and so it took over an hour for the child to consume 6 ounces of baby formula. The child is doing much better now and is receiving services from the Regional Center.” Furthermore, the maternal grandmother was also interested in adopting Patti, and there were “at least” ten other families available to adopt her.
At the hearing, the social worker testified Patti had four appointments a week for therapy and other services, but she did not think that would negatively affect Patti’s adoptability. The social worker could not remember Patti’s “actual diagnosis”; she was aware, however, that Patti had neurological issues and was “stiff on one side, and they have to teach her how to . . . use the muscles . . . from her neck down one side.”
The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that Patti was adoptable and terminated parental rights. Patricia filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
Patricia contends there is insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that Patti is adoptable. She claims the social worker’s opinion was unreliable because she did not know Patti’s diagnosis and was unaware of the severity of her neurological problems. She argues without the social worker’s opinion, there was only Patti’s age and gender to support the finding. We disagree. The record contains ample evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding by clear and convincing evidence; accordingly, we affirm. (In re Asia L. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 498, 509-510.)
The D.’s had cared for Patti for almost two years and were well aware of the day-to-day problems presented by her neurological condition. They had adopted other special needs children and were firmly committed to adopting Patti. “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.)
Furthermore, the maternal grandmother, who had adopted some of Patti’s siblings, also wanted to adopt Patti. The grandmother had visited Patti consistently during her life and was well aware of her problems. And the social worker who matched potential adoptive families with children reported there were ten families available to adopt a child like Patti. Based on this evidence, the juvenile court could reasonably conclude “that it is likely the child will be adopted” within a reasonable time. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1); In re Jerome D. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1204.)
The cases upon which Patricia bases her argument are distinguishable from Patti’s situation. In re Asia L., supra, 107 Cal.App.4th 498 involved three siblings who displayed many emotional and psychological issues, and the foster parents had expressed only a vague willingness to consider adoption. No other prospective families had been identified. The court reversed the finding of adoptability. In re Brian P. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 616 reversed an adoptability finding because there was no adoption assessment report as required by statute. And in In re Jerome D., supra, 84 Cal.App.4th 1200, the court reversed the adoptability finding regarding a six-year-old boy who was strongly bonded to his mother. The finding was based on the stepfather’s willingness to adopt, but the adoption assessment “did not address his criminal and [child protective services] history as required by section 366.22, subdivision (b)(4).” (Id. at p. 1205.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment terminating parental rights is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: MOORE, J., ARONSON, J.