Opinion
E066872
03-30-2017
In re D.L. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. C.M., Defendant and Appellant.
Pamela Rae Tripp, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Jean-Rene Basle, County Counsel, Jamila Bayati, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.Nos. J253008 & J253009 & J253010) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Annemarie G. Pace, Judge. Affirmed. Pamela Rae Tripp, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Jean-Rene Basle, County Counsel, Jamila Bayati, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant C.M. (mother) challenges the termination of her parental rights by the juvenile court at a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing on September 7, 2016. For the reasons set forth post, we shall affirm the judgment.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. DETENTION, JURISDICTION/DISPOSITION
D.L., S.L., and C.L. (the children) were ages one, four and seven, respectively, when they came to the attention of plaintiff and respondent San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS). C.L. (born May 2006) and D.L. (born June 2012) are females; S.L. (born Jan. 2010) is male. CFS received a referral in January 2014 indicating that mother was heavily into drugs, physically abusing the children, and lacked basic provisions and stable housing. Mother reportedly kept the children around only to receive welfare, and was becoming increasingly aggressive and threatening with the paternal grandmother (PGM). Ch.L. (father) was in jail for domestic violence; he was due to be released in 2015.
Father is not a party to this appeal. --------
The social worker tracked mother down through a woman residing at mother's previous address and arranged to meet with mother and the younger siblings at a park. At the meeting, mother eventually admitted that she used methamphetamines a week prior, and had been acting erratically. She had been residing with PGM and with friends. PGM permitted mother and the children to stay with her. Mother lacked adequate food, clothing and shelter for the children.
On or about January 28, 2014, the social worker called PGM to confirm that mother lived there. PGM stated that she took C.L. to school and mother left to an unknown location with the younger siblings. CFS secured warrants to detain the children, and placed C.L. with PGM. The next day, mother called the social worker advising that she heard C.L. was taken into custody. Mother was staying with a friend. A criminal check revealed that mother was on formal probation for welfare fraud, and father was serving a five-year prison sentence for domestic violence.
On January 30, 2014, the social worker filed section 300 petitions for the children in the juvenile court with allegations stated under subdivisions (b) and (g). Under subdivision (b) for failure to protect, the petition alleged that (1) mother and father (collectively, parents) had a substance abuse problem that affected their ability to parent the children; (2) parents engaged in domestic violence, which placed the children at substantial risk of abuse and/or neglect; (3) mother's unstable, unsafe lifestyle and lack of knowledge and parenting skills placed children at substantial risk of abuse and/or neglect; and (4) father knew or reasonably should have known that the children were at substantial risk of abuse and/or neglect if left in the home of mother. Under subdivision (g), no provision for support, the petition alleged that (1) father was currently incarcerated and unable to make arrangements; and (2) mother's whereabouts were currently unknown as was her willingness and ability to parent the children.
On January 31, 2014, at the detention hearing, neither mother nor father was present in court. Father had appointed counsel since he was in state prison. The court found a prima facie case, detained C.L. with PGM, ordered the warrants to remain in effect for D.L. and S.L., set a jurisdiction/disposition (J/D) hearing, and ordered supervised visits. Father's visits would occur upon his release from custody.
On February 18, 2014, the court held a bench warrant recall hearing. Mother attended with her appointed counsel. The two younger siblings had been located; they were detained in foster care and their warrants were recalled.
The J/D report dated February 21, 2014, requested that the court sustain the petitions, remove the children from parental custody, and order family reunification (FR) services for mother; but bypass FR services for father given his incarceration and conviction for a violent felony. Mother's case plan included counseling, a domestic violence and parenting education program, and substance ABUSE treatment and testing. The children's case plans included counseling and assessments to determine their needs.
Father had a long criminal history with multiple domestic violence and robbery convictions, convictions for conspiracy to commit a crime, and a DUI. Aside from the welfare fraud convictions, mother also had convictions related to her disturbing the peace, and drug-related crimes.
Despite the neglect the children endured, they appeared healthy and developmentally on target. However, C.L. attended the second grade and performed below grade level. Moreover, she was often tardy and absent from school. CFS worked on placing the children together. PGM had a one-bedroom home, which prohibited placement of the children with her. C.L. remained in PGM's care; S.L. and D.L. were placed in foster care.
On February 21, 2014, at the initial J/D hearing, the matter was set for a trial on behalf of father. The court authorized CFS to facilitate forensic interviews of the children.
A CFS addendum report dated March 25, 2014, stated that in a forensic interview, C.L. disclosed that her stepgrandfather sexually abused her.
On May 5, 2014, the court held the J/D trial. Counsel for each parent objected to the court sustaining the petitions, and father's counsel also objected to the denial of FR services. The court sustained the petitions, found father to be the presumed father, removed the children from parental custody, ordered FR services for mother, and bypassed father's services. Mother's case plan was amended to address protection issues to address the sexual abuse of C.L. The court found the children appropriately placed, but authorized placement together with PGM if appropriate.
B. FAMILY REUNIFICATION AND FM SERVICES
The six-month review hearing report dated November 5, 2014, indicated that mother sporadically attended services, missed several drug tests, and tested positive for substances. The children were stable and happy in placement. C.L. was attached to PGM, who was close to other family members residing nearby.
At visits, mother demonstrated an inability to set limits and boundaries for the children, despite receiving instructions. Notwithstanding, CFS recommended unsupervised visits, as long as mother was not under the influence and refrained from using controlled substances during visits. CFS also recommended continued FR services for mother.
On November 5, 2014, at the review hearing, the juvenile court set trial for January 12, 2016, to address the children's counsel's objection to unsupervised visits and continued FR services for mother.
By December 9, 2014, mother completed residential treatment and a parenting course, was residing in a sober living home, and was attending a 12-step program and workshops. At the January 12, 2015, trial, the children's counsel agreed with CFS's recommendations. The court ordered continued FR services, maintained the children in their placements, permitted mother unsupervised visits, and set a review hearing.
In February 2015, the social worker submitted a packet requesting that the court order the children placed with mother, in the home of PGM, with FM services in place. On March 6, 2015, the court approved the packet.
The March 30, 2015, status review hearing report recommended the children's maintenance with mother, with FM services in place. Mother was cooperative with CFS and made good progress. Moreover, the children were happy they returned to mother. They did not present with any developmental, behavioral, or mental health concerns, and appeared to be healthy. C.L. was in the second grade. She received services through an Individual Education Plan (IEP) and attended tutoring to help her reach grade-level performance. C.L. also attended therapy, and was able to share her feelings with trusted individuals such as PGM. C.L.'s therapeutic progress report indicated that C.L. had "the ability to learn, through stories and play therapy, new ways of bonding with people she feels safe with."
On March 30, 2015, at the status review hearing, the juvenile court ordered the children maintained with mother, with FM services in place, ordered mother to drug test, and set another review hearing.
C. SECTION 387: SECOND REMOVAL
On April 22, 2015, CFS detained the children from mother's custody under section 387 because she relapsed. Mother would leave the children unattended without alerting anyone that she was leaving, exposed the children to drug users, and cared for the children after using methamphetamine. On April 22, 2015, CFS detained the children with PGM.
On April 27, 2015, at the section 387 detention hearing, the juvenile court found a prima facie case under section 387, detained the children with PGM, set a section 387 J/D hearing, and ordered supervised visits.
The section 387 J/D report dated April 27, 2015, recommended the children's removal from parental custody, termination of services, and the setting of a section 366.26 hearing. The report indicated that adoption or legal guardianship were appropriate plans, but the report findings asked the court to set a section 366.26 hearing "not limited to the recommendation . . . [of] legal guardianship or permanent placement," which meant that CFS was considering the plan of adoption for the children. The report reiterated concerns stated in the section 387 detention report, and noted that mother failed to drug test as the court ordered on March 30, 2015, and failed to test on demand on April 1, 2015. Mother was re-referred to substance abuse treatment, but she failed to attend the program.
During visits, it was apparent that mother lacked the capacity to apply what she had learned in services. On one occasion, C.L. would not permit S.L. to watch a certain movie. Mother tried to calm S.L. down, and S.L. repeatedly asked mother to leave him alone. Mother held S.L. and would not let him go, leading S.L. to hit mother. At the social worker's suggestion, mother released S.L. S.L. regrouped and calmed himself down. The social worker later asked mother what she learned, and mother wondered if she should have let S.L. go. Mother was easily overwhelmed, and the children responded with tantrums and disrespect. With a stricter caregiver, the children were focused, appropriate and less active. The children's therapist noted mother was unstable, and had no control over the children, who lacked respect for mother.
CFS sought a relative caregiver who would take D.L. and S.L.; PGM agreed the younger siblings needed more care than she could provide. C.L. was strongly bonded with PGM.
On May 18, 2015, at the section 387 J/D hearing, the court set a trial for June 12, 2015. Before trial, mother left residential treatment, failed to contact CFS, and was not available by telephone. Also, PGM broke her ankle and foot, so she was unable to care for any of the children. CFS was assessing other relatives and hoped to place the children together.
On June 12, 2015, the court held the section 387 J/D trial. The attorney for mother argued for more services, and the children's attorney asked the court to follow CFS recommendations. The court sustained the section 387 petition, found the previous disposition ineffective in protecting the children, removed them from parental custody, terminated mother's FR services, ordered supervised visits, and maintained the children with Mrs. C., a relative. They court also found it was in the best interests of the children to consider termination of parental rights; a section 366.26 hearing was set for October 13, 2015.
D. SECTION 366.26
The section 366.26 report dated October 13, 2015, requested a 180-day continuance. C.L. was then age nine, and indicated that she did not want to be adopted. The children had no apparent significant developmental delays and were healthy. S.L. and C.L. were in school; both were doing well. C.L. had an IEP to address her auditory processing deficit. The report stated Mrs. C. rescinded her request to assume legal guardianship of C.L. and adopt the younger siblings, who were then ages three and five. CFS was looking for a new concurrent planning home.
While the children were placed with PGM, they lacked structure; their lives were chaotic. With Mrs. C., they initially refused to eat healthy foods. They were accustomed to eating fast food and hoarded food. They also struggled with routine, expectations and personal boundaries. They were adjusting to the placement and with residing with each together since C.L. previously resided separately from her younger siblings. The children's behaviors were improving. C.L. had been in two prior placements—with PGM and mother. D.L. and S.L. had been in three placements—in a foster home that had been decertified, in an alternative foster home, and then with mother. At the time of reporting, mother was sporadically visiting. She tended to show up late, cancel visits, or appear under the influence. Father was no longer incarcerated, but he also visited sporadically.
The social worker opined that the children were adoptable, as they were relatively young and resided in minimum placements. However, C.L. did not want to be adopted. CFS was concerned that C.L. would sabotage the placement, but she could be helpful and cooperative. C.L. was known to fabricate to cover for her parents, but she had "great big expressive eyes that show[ed] her goodness." S.L. was "a ball of energy that show[ed] his love of life through very active play and his big smile [He wa]s also very loving and affectionate and quick to flash his smile to get his way. [He could] also be pensive at times and appear[ed] to keep his feelings inside." D.L. was "strong willed" and "playful," and liked to "run her own show." The children were very likeable, and could be very affectionate and eager to please. C.L. wished to stay with family, but that did not appear to be an option.
It was not realistic to keep the children in foster care for 10 to 16 years, given their young ages. They needed permanence and stability. At the time of reporting, C.L. refused to be adopted. That fact alone made placing the children together in an adoptive home difficult. At times C.L. wanted to reside with D.L. and S.L., and at times she did not. S.L., who was old enough to verbalize his wishes, wanted to remain with his siblings. Adoption was the goal for the children. CFS would reassess C.L.'s wishes when an adoptive home was located. C.L. and S.L. attended therapy to address grief and loss due to their removal from their parents and family.
On October 13, 2015, at the section 366.26 hearing, the court set a further section 366.26 hearing for April 13, 2016, to allow CFS to locate a concurrent planning home for the children.
The section 366.26 addendum report filed on April 8, 2016, requested time to assess the home of Mrs. V. and Mr. H.., paternal cousin and spouse (the relatives) for placement of the children. On February 19, 2016, the relatives sought placement of the children. On March 3, 2016, they expressed their wish to adopt the children. The relatives had not raised children, so CFS recommended a 90-day continuance to permit continued assessment of the home and placement of the children there.
At a non-appearance review hearing on April 11, 2016, the court noted that the children were placed in the relatives' home on April 8, 2014. The children were excited about the move and the relatives sought to adopt the children. "The children are in agreement with the plan of adoption."
On April 13, 2016, at the further section 366.26 hearing, the court continued the section 366.26 hearing to July 12, 2016, to allow CFS to further assess the children's placement with the relatives.
An addendum report filed June 29, 2016, for the July 12, 2016, hearing recommended termination of parental rights to permit adoption by the relatives. Mrs. V. knew C.L. as a baby, and the relatives met the younger children approximately one year earlier. When the relatives learned that the children would be adopted outside of the family, they sought placement of the children. The children were excited and happy about the prospect of being adopted by the relatives. D.L. and S.L. regarded the relatives as their parents, and parent/child relationships were forming. S.L. referred to Mr. H. as "dad." C.L. was loyal to father, so Mr. H. focused on being a positive male role model for her. C.L. told the social worker that she was happy being placed with the relatives and wanted to be adopted by them. She understood legally they would be her parents.
C.L. began bragging about how well she could lie, and would go on websites where college girls could find men. Consequently, Mrs. V. supervised C.L. more and removed her social media. The social worker recommended counseling for C.L., but both C.L. and Mrs. V. did not feel it was needed at the time. The relatives were provided a counseling referral if needed. The relatives lacked experience as parents, but they wanted to move forward with the adoption, although the social worker offered them more time.
The relatives met in July 2013 and were married shortly thereafter. They got along well and worked as a team. The Relative Assessment Unit approved their home. Mr. H. was 26 and Mrs. V. was 24. Both of them were in good health. Mrs. V. was employed with the United States Marine Corps., coordinating events. She typically worked from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., but her schedule was flexible. Mr. H. was a Marine drill instructor. He typically lived on base for three months training recruits, then was home for one to two months. As military protocol, Mr. H. had a psychological evaluation to ensure mental stability. Mrs. V. had no history of mental health issues. The couple had no known history of substance abuse, criminal or child abuse. They passed clearances. When Mrs. V. was at work, D.L. attended preschool, and S.L. and C.L. attended school and after-school care. Mr. H.'s sister was available to babysit as well.
The relatives believed in providing structure for the children, and teaching them that actions have consequences. The relatives intended to talk about problems, impart good decision-making skills, and use timeouts and removal of privileges as disciplinary measures. To date, the children reacted positively to discipline. C.L. was described as the easiest child; she was helpful and usually helped Mrs. V. cook dinner. Mr. H. rarely had to counsel C.L.
The relatives considered themselves the best suited to become the children's parents. They were family and could provide the children with stability and a safe, loving home. They intended to allow contact with the children's family members, as long as it was in the children's best interests. The social worker concluded: "The children are appropriate children for adoption. They are placed with a prospective adoptive family who [is] committed to their long term care. The children have been placed with the family for two months and both the children and the family are beginning to develop a mutual attachment. Mr. H. and Mrs. V. are dedicated to[the children], and committed to raising them to adulthood. It is recommended that the children be freed from their birth parents in order to be placed for adoption with Mr. H. and Mrs. V." The report indicated termination of parental rights would not be detrimental and no exception to adoption applied.
On July 12, 2016, at the further section 366.26 hearing, the court set a trial, which was later continued and held on September 7, 2016, because father was reincarcerated and his transportation order required time. At the time of trial, the children had been with the relatives for five months, from April 8 to September 7, 2016. An addendum report filed June 29, 2016, indicated parents had not expressed an interest in visiting the children, although father did have phone contact. Mother never visited the children after they were placed with the relatives. The children established close relationships with the relatives, whom D.L. and S.L. referred to as "mom and dad." C.L. confirmed she wanted to be adopted by the relatives.
On September 7, 2016, at the section 366.26 trial, parents objected to termination of their parental rights. The children's attorney endorsed CFS's recommendations. The juvenile court considered the children's wishes, consistent with their ages, and found clear and convincing evidence that the children were generally and specifically adoptable, and that termination of parental rights would be in the children's best interests. The court terminated parents' parental rights, ordered adoption as the appropriate plan, and estimated the adoption would be finalized within 12 months.
DISCUSSION
A. THE JUVENILE COURT PROPERLY FOUND THE CHILDREN WERE ADOPTABLE
Mother claims that "there was no substantial evidence to support the court's finding th[at] these children were likely to be adopted." (All caps and boldface omitted.) CFS argues the case should be dismissed because mother filed her opening brief eight days after the deadline, and that mother forfeited her challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. We need not address these issues because mother's argument fails on the merits.
1. APPLICABLE LAW AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
Whether a child is likely to be adopted is the "pivotal question" at a section 366.26 hearing. (In re Tamneisha S. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 798, 804.) "In order for a juvenile court to terminate parental rights under section 366.26, the court must find by clear and convincing evidence that it is likely that the child will be adopted. [Citation.] [The appellate court] review[s] the juvenile court's order to determine whether the record contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could find clear and convincing evidence that the [children were] likely to be adopted. [Citations.] 'Clear and convincing' evidence requires a finding of high probability. The evidence must be so clear as to leave no substantial doubt." (In re Asia L. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 498, 509-510.) In fact, the evidence "'must be sufficiently strong to command the unhesitating assent of every reasonable mind.'" (In re Amelia S. (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1060, 1065.)
The likelihood of adoption is often discerned from an adoption assessment report, the purpose of which is to provide the court with information necessary to determine whether the permanent plan selected is in the child's best interests. (In re Dakota S. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 494, 496.) Pursuant to section 366.21, subdivision (i)(1), DCS was required to prepare such an assessment, to include, among other things, "[a]n evaluation of the child's medical, developmental, scholastic, mental, and emotional status," and "[a] preliminary assessment of the eligibility and commitment of any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, . . . particularly the caretaker, to include a social history including screening for criminal records and prior referrals for child abuse or neglect."
As previously indicated, we review the juvenile court's adoptability determination for substantial evidence. (In re Y.R. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 99, 112, disapproved on another point in In re S.B. (2009) 46 Cal.4th 529, 537, fn. 5.) In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, we must "presume in favor of the order, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, giving the prevailing party the benefit of every reasonable inference and resolving all conflicts in support of the order." (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 576.) If any credible evidence supports the juvenile court's conclusion as to adoptability, we must uphold it. (In re Cliffton B. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 415, 424-425.)
2. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THE COURT'S ADOPTIBILITY FINDING
In making its determination of adoptability, the juvenile court is required to "focus on the child, and whether the child's age, physical condition, and emotional state make it difficult to find a person willing to adopt." (In re Brian P. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 616, 624.) However, a finding that a child is likely to be adopted does not require the child's placement in the home of a prospective adoptive parent, or even that one be "'waiting in the wings.'" (In re Jennilee T. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 212, 223, fn. 11.) Thus, while the existence of a prospective adoptive family is a factor to be considered in making the determination, it is not dispositive. (In re David H. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 368, 378.) As a general rule, "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.) In this regard, "[i]f the child is considered generally adoptable, we do not examine the suitability of the prospective adoptive home. [Citation.] However, where the child is deemed adoptable based solely on the fact that a particular family is willing to adopt him or her, the trial court must determine whether there is a legal impediment to adoption." (In re Carl R. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1051, 1061.)
In this case, mother contends that the children's issues do not support a finding of general adoptability because C.L. "had issues early on" and D.L. "had been identified for mental health services." In essence, mother argues that the children are not generally adoptable because of their medical, scholastic, behavioral and emotional issues. As provided in detail ante, the children's issues were not as significant as argued by mother. None of them required 24/7 care or a caregiver with specialized training. Moreover, the relative caregivers were already addressing the children's issues. Even if the children had "special needs," none of their issues affected their adoptability. In fact, many of the issues raised by mother related to the inadequate parenting the children received from parents. The children also lived in chaos with PGM, who also lacked parenting skills. These issues were being resolved through effective parenting by relative caregivers. For example, when the children were first placed with Mrs. C., they initially refused to eat healthy foods because they were used to eating fast food. The children also struggled with routine and typical discipline. The children adjusted to placement and to residing with each other; their behavior improved. Even mother acknowledges that "[g]ratefully services were implemented."
Furthermore, even children with numerous health, emotional, and behavioral issues can be determined to be both generally and specifically adoptable, where the children have appealing characteristics, such as youth and affectionate personalities. (In re Helen W. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 71, 79-80.) Extreme behaviors, defiance and ADHD symptoms do not prevent an adoptability finding. (In re I.I. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 857, 870-871.) When a child is young and healthy, courts have little problem finding that a child is generally adoptable. (In re R.C. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 486, 489-492.) For example, in In re Michael G. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 580, the seven-year-old child tested positive for amphetamines at birth. (Id. at p. 584.) The child exhibited hyperactivity, defiance, and aggressive behaviors. He hoarded food and had severe tantrums. He, however, was bright and in good health. His conduct lead to one removal from a placement with a relative. (Id. at pp. 585-586.) By the time of the section 366.26 hearing, the social worker identified a number of homes approved to adopt the child. At that time, the child's psychological evaluation was pending and the results could impact the number of available homes. The father's counsel requested a continuance until receipt of the evaluation. The juvenile court denied the father's request, found that the child was likely to be adopted within a reasonable time, and terminated parental rights. (Id. at p. 587.) After the father appealed, the appellate court found substantial evidence that the child would be adopted in a reasonable time and affirmed the judgment. (Id. at p. 591.)
Here, the children have appealing characteristics such as youth, and have affectionate, kind and giving personalities. C.L. was described as having "great big expressive eyes that show her goodness." S.L. was described as "a ball of energy that shows his love of life through very active play and his big smile. [He] is also very loving and affectionate and quick to flash his smile to get his way. [He] can also be pensive at times and appears to keep his feelings inside." D.L. was described as "strong willed" and "playful" and liked to "run her own show." The children were very likeable, could be very affectionate, and were eager to please. Moreover, in this case, the relatives were able and willing to adopt the children, and the children, to the extent they could express their desires, wished to be adopted by the relatives. Nonetheless, mother stated that C.L. did not want to be adopted during the "entirety of the case." The facts, however, show that after the section 366.26 hearing was set, and the relatives were willing to adopt the children, C.L. decided that she did want to be adopted by the relatives.
Based on the facts set forth ante, the juvenile court's finding that the children were generally adoptable is supported by substantial evidence.
In addition to challenging the general adoptability finding, mother claims that the children were not specifically adoptable. Because we have concluded there is substantial evidence supporting the finding of general adoptability, the issue related to specific adoptability has been rendered moot. (In re A.B. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1358, 1364 [when no effective relief can be granted, an issue is moot].) Accordingly, we do not address the substance of the specific adoptability issue.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER
J. We concur: HOLLENHORST
Acting. P. J. McKINSTER
J.