Opinion
C082330
03-10-2017
In re A.C. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. YOLO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. K.H., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. JV13478 & JV13479)
Appellant K.H., mother of the minors, appeals from the juvenile court's orders terminating parental rights and freeing the minors for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.) She contends there was insufficient evidence that the minors were adoptable. We affirm.
Further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
BACKGROUND
Yolo County Department of Employment and Social Services filed section 300 petitions on November 1, 2013, on behalf of minor A.C. (born March 2008) and G.W. (born December 2011) due to domestic violence between the parents and mother's mental health issues. The family had been receiving voluntary services since May 2013. The minors were detained together in foster care.
Dependency proceedings were also brought on behalf of the minors' older sibling. That sibling is not, however, a subject of this appeal. --------
On November 21, 2013, the juvenile court sustained the petitions and, on January 29, 2014, declared them dependent children of the court. The minors were ordered removed from mother's custody and remained in the same foster care placement. Mother and G.W.'s father were provided reunification services.
In May 2014, the minors were moved to a new foster home due to a licensing violation. Both minors were developmentally on target. G.W. did not exhibit any mental or emotional problems. A.C. had been in therapy for nine months and was likely suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) due to his past exposure to repeated acts of violence and neglect. He had a history of night terrors, difficulty sleeping, memories of violence, and poor social boundaries and focus. He also had occasional tantrums and physical aggression, and increased levels of activity. His therapist prescribed medication for attention deficit disorder. Both minors exhibited increased anxiety after visits with mother due to mother's behavior. A.C. also struggled with split loyalties between his mother and his foster parents and with bonding with the foster parents as a result of mother's comments during visits.
The minors were still in the same foster home in November 2014 in which they were placed in May 2014. G.W. was still developmentally on target and exhibited normal social and emotional milestones. She did not exhibit any mental or emotional problems. A.C. was also developmentally on target. His aggressive behaviors had noticeably reduced.
In April 2015, it was reported that the minors' foster parents were expressing a strong desire to adopt the minors. G.W. was still developmentally on target with no mental or emotional problems. A.C. was also developmentally on target and his aggressive behaviors continued to decrease. He still had difficulty focusing on a single task and had occasional tantrums. Mother was inactive in services and failing to drug test. Reunification services were terminated in May 2015.
An adoption assessment was completed in October 2015. Prior to the assessment, the foster family with whom the minors were placed had decided not to proceed with adoption for "personal reasons." The minors remained in their home while a new adoptive placement was being sought.
Both minors were in good health. G.W. was not exhibiting any emotional or mental problems and was developmentally on target. A.C. was still developmentally on target but was struggling with behavior issues in school. He had been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and had difficulty staying on task. His mental and emotional health, however, had been improving and his aggressive behaviors were reduced. He had thrived in this home and appeared happy and attached to his caregivers. He was on medication for anxiety and to improve his sleep. The adoptions specialist assessed the minors to be adoptable. The specialist noted that a transition to a new adoptive home required multiple visits prior to placement and the assistance of the foster mother and therapist.
On December 29, 2015, the minors were placed together in a new prospective adoptive home. A.C., however, struggled with the male biological child in the home, was possessive about being the only brother, and was verbally threatening. This created a conflict between the boys and the family decided they could no longer care for the minors. The minors were moved to their current prospective adoptive placement on February 10, 2015, after two weeks of visits. A.C. and G.W. were the only children in this home.
The current foster family was very committed to the minors, motivated in attending to the minors' needs, and committed to adopting them. They moved into a larger home to accommodate them and were "extremely willing to put forth considerable effort needed in finding strategies and resources to meet [A.C.'s] needs." They set appropriate boundaries, encouraged positive self-esteem, and supported the minors as they adjusted to their new environment.
G.W. was in good health and no therapy was being recommended for her. A.C. was adjusting to the family and developing a positive relationship with them. He was expected to continue in therapy and was being transferred to a new therapist due to the distance from his current home. He was described by the court-appointed special advocate worker as "delightful" and having many strengths, but also having challenging behaviors that would require a lot of support. The foster parents reported that he responded well to gentle coaching. They were eager to help him succeed and were already very attached to him. The adoptions specialist filed an addendum, again concluding the minors were likely to be adopted.
Mother visited the minors on April 5, 2016. She had not visited them since May 2015, and the adoptions specialist and A.C.'s former therapist were concerned how A.C. would be affected by such a visit. A.C. had been on an "emotional roller coaster," not knowing if mother would show up for visits. The visit went well but mother made comments about decorating his room for him, which confused him, and he was sad after the visit because mother had been crying. G.W. was also upset and confused after the visit, asking about living with mother. The evening after the visit, she had a "major meltdown," asking about her mother and where she would be living. She was referred to counseling.
The section 366.26 hearing took place on May 12, 2016. Although the minors had some residual effect, grieving the loss of the foster family with whom they had been placed for 19 months, they were doing well in their current foster home where they had been since February 10, 2016. A.C. consistently told the social worker he wanted to be adopted by them and was afraid of being removed from their home. G.W. also expressed a desire to remain in the care of her new foster family.
Both minors were in good health and developmentally on track. A.C. was excelling at school but was described as having some challenging behaviors, some tantrums, and some mental health needs. He was continuing to receive therapy. G.W. had also recently been referred to therapy. The social worker testified that the current foster home was able to meet the behavior and mental health needs of the minors and had done a good job of addressing their needs and seeking assistance when necessary.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court found the minors to be adoptable and terminated parental rights.
DISCUSSION
Mother contends the juvenile court's finding that the minors are adoptable is not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree.
"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." (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1).)
"The issue of adoptability posed in a section 366.26 hearing focuses on the minor, e.g., whether the minor's age, physical condition, and emotional state make it difficult to find a person willing to adopt the minor. [Citations.] Hence, it is not necessary that the minor already be in a potential adoptive home or that there be a proposed adoptive parent 'waiting in the wings.' " (In re Sarah M. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1642, 1649.) On the other hand, "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." (Id. at pp. 1649-1650, italics omitted.)
"Although a finding of adoptability must be supported by clear and convincing evidence, it is nevertheless a low threshold: The court must merely determine that it is 'likely' that the child will be adopted within a reasonable time." (In re K.B. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1275, 1292.) We review the juvenile court's finding that the minors are likely to be adopted within a reasonable time under the substantial evidence standard, giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference and resolving any evidentiary conflicts in favor of affirming. (In re I.I. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 857, 869.)
Applying these principles to the minors here, they were assessed and determined to be adoptable by both the social worker and the adoptions specialist. Both minors were healthy and developmentally on track. A.C. was described as delightful, excelling in school, and responding well to his foster parents parenting techniques. Although A.C. did struggle with some behavioral and mental issues, as a result of his PTSD and ADHD, his problems did not reach the severity that would render him unadoptable. Furthermore, A.C.'s behavior problems had improved, and continued to improve, with time and counseling. Indeed, a family had already indicated they were committed to adopting them. As we have previously noted, the fact that a family wants to adopt a minor is evidence that the minor is generally adoptable. (In re Sarah M., supra, 22 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1649-1650.)
On this record, that two specific foster placements did not result in adoption does not suggest that the minors are not adoptable. In the most recent former placement, the foster family, with whom the minors had been placed for about a month, decided not to adopt in light of A.C.'s conflict with their biological son. In their earlier long-term foster placement, the foster family decided not to pursue adoption for "personal reasons." Neither circumstance suggests that the minors' age, physical condition, or mental state render the minors unlikely to be adopted. On the other hand, the decisions of those families, and their current foster family, to consider adoption is some indication that, contrary to mother's argument, the minors are not too old (at eight & four years of age) to be considered adoptable.
In sum, there was sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that the minors were adoptable.
DISPOSITION
The orders of the juvenile court are affirmed.
/s/_________
Blease, J. We concur: /s/_________
Raye, P. J. /s/_________
Renner, J.