Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. 984
Sims, Acting P. J.
L.C., mother of the minor, appeals from orders of the juvenile court terminating parental rights and freeing the minor for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395 [further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code].) Appellant contends the evidence did not support the juvenile court’s finding the minor was likely to be adopted within a reasonable time. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant voluntarily placed the four-year-old minor in foster care in June 2007 because the minor, who appellant believed had been sexually molested, was beyond appellant’s control and appellant wanted her “fix[ed].” Appellant refused services and the Sierra County Department of Human Services filed a petition in July 2007 to remove the minor from appellant’s custody. The court ordered the minor detained.
In foster care, the minor initially displayed highly sexualized and aggressive behavior but responded positively to consistency and routine. The minor had characteristics of reactive attachment disorder and appellant admitted there was no bond between them. The minor began therapy to deal with her issues.
The six-month review report stated the minor’s behavior had improved with therapy and the structure in her foster home. The minor was no longer sexually acting out, was learning personal and social boundaries and developing empathy, but still needed constant supervision to deal with her frequent inappropriate behaviors. The current caretakers were interested in adoption. A psychological evaluation in December 2007 confirmed the diagnosis of reactive attachment disorder but noted that the minor had made considerable progress in six months and might be able to improve more than was generally expected of an attachment-disordered child. The court terminated reunification services at the six-month review hearing and set a section 366.26 hearing to select a permanent plan for the minor.
The April 2008 assessment for the selection and implementation hearing stated the minor was doing well in her foster placement. The minor continued to have behavioral problems, but they could usually be managed with close supervision, intervention, and support from the therapist. The current caretakers, who had initially committed to adoption, were moving to Romania to do missionary work and believed taking the minor was not in her best interests. A subsequent status review report indicated the caretakers were reconsidering adoption and investigating possible support services in Romania. A family who previously had provided respite care was willing to care for the minor until a permanent placement was found. A second assessment in September recommended that the court identify adoption as the permanent plan without terminating parental rights. The assessment acknowledged the minor’s emotional, behavioral, and social issues but noted there had been progress in all areas and her behavioral issues could be managed. The minor continued in twice-weekly therapy. The assessment stated the minor was healthy, slightly delayed socially and likely to be adopted, but a prospective adoptive family had not yet been identified. At the hearing the court found the minor was difficult to place but identified adoption as the permanent plan and continued the section 366.26 hearing.
A review report in December 2008 stated the minor had adjusted well to kindergarten, was continuing to make good progress in therapy and felt accepted and secure in her new foster home. A prospective adoptive home had been selected from multiple families who were interested in the minor and visits between the minor and the family were planned. At the review hearing, the court found the minor was likely to be adopted and set a date for the section 366.26 hearing.
The February 2009 assessment report stated that the prospective adoptive family selected in November 2008 had not worked out and the minor was angry and upset but had worked through the problem in therapy and her behavior had returned to normal. The minor remained healthy, was doing well in kindergarten, and a new potential adoptive family had helped stabilize her. The adoptions specialist said the minor was adoptable and she was currently visiting the potential adoptive family, although a specific placement had not yet been identified. The family had dealt successfully with the minor’s behavioral issues. The assessment concluded that the minor did not meet the definition of a difficult to place child for, while she did have a diagnosis of reactive attachment disorder, she also had the ability to bond. The failure of the two prior adoptive pairings was not due to the minor and greater care would be used in transitioning the minor to a new adoptive family.
At the hearing, the adoptions specialist testified there currently was an identified adoptive family but the minor had not been told that. More time was needed to develop a bond between them. The family had experienced the minor’s behavioral issues and was not put off by them. The specialist had no reservations about the minor’s adoptability and testified that even if the current family did not work out, another would be found.
The social worker testified the minor “was going on her fifth visit” with the prospective adoptive family, which included one visit that was over a week long. The family had handled the minor’s tantrums without assistance. The social worker stated that the minor’s tantrums are stress related so reducing stress, staying with the minor, and separating the minor from others gives her the opportunity to calm down. The minor had made an incredible amount of progress since her initial placement in foster care and it was probable that she would be adopted.
The court reiterated its prior finding the minor was likely to be adopted within a reasonable time, found no basis to avoid termination of parental rights, and adopted the recommended findings and orders terminating parental rights.
DISCUSSION
Appellant contends the evidence does not support the court’s finding the minor was likely to be adopted within a reasonable time.
The court, at the September 2008 section 366.26 hearing, initially made the finding the minor was likely to be adopted. No appeal was taken from this finding. However, because the juvenile court permitted additional evidence of the likelihood of adoption and reiterated its findings during the hearing from which this appeal was taken, the issue has not been forfeited. (See, e.g., In re Daniel K. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 661, 667.)
When the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding or order is challenged on appeal, even where the standard of proof in the trial court is clear and convincing evidence, the reviewing court must determine if there is any substantial evidence -- that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible and of solid value -- to support the conclusion of the trier of fact. (In re Angelia P. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 908, 924; In re Jason L. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1206, 1214.) In making this determination, we recognize that all conflicts are to be resolved in favor of the prevailing party and that issues of fact and credibility are questions for the trier of fact. (In re Jason L., supra, 222 Cal.App.3d at p. 1214; In re Steve W. (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 10, 16.) The reviewing court may not reweigh the evidence when assessing the sufficiency of the evidence. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318-319.)
“If the court determines, based on the assessment... and any other relevant evidence, by a clear and convincing standard, that it is likely the child will be adopted, the court shall terminate parental rights and order the child placed for adoption. The fact that the child is not yet placed in a preadoptive home nor with a relative or foster family who is prepared to adopt the child, shall not constitute a basis for the court to conclude that it is not likely the child will be adopted.” (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1).)
Determination of whether a child is likely to be adopted focuses first upon the characteristics of the child. (In re Sarah M. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1642, 1649.) The existence or suitability of the prospective adoptive family, if any, is not relevant to this issue. (Id. at pp. 1649-1650; In re Scott M. (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 839, 844.) “[T]here must be convincing evidence of the likelihood that the adoption will take place within a reasonable time.” (In re Brian P. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 616, 624.)
The evidence showed that, while the minor had serious emotional and behavioral problems at the outset of the case, the outward expression of these problems, i.e., aggressive and sexualized behaviors, had dissipated over time because of a home environment of consistency and structure and the minor’s participation in therapy. This is not to say that the minor currently has no emotional, social, or behavioral problems; she does. However, the behaviors she currently displays are, according to the testimony and reports, manageable by experienced and caring adults and continue to decrease as the minor’s therapy assists her in coping with the challenges she faces. Further, although diagnosed with reactive attachment disorder, the minor has demonstrated some ability to bond with adults she has come to trust. The minor is otherwise young, healthy, bright, and without medical issues or functional delays. More than one family has expressed interest in adopting her and, according to the adoptions specialist, the failure of the previous adoptive pairings was not the result of the minor’s issues. Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding the minor was likely to be adopted in a reasonable time.
DISPOSITION
The orders of the juvenile court are affirmed.
We concur: Raye , J., Cantil-Sakauye , J.