In re S.R. CA1/1

Filed 5/8/25 In re S.R. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

In re S.R., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. A171311 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES (Contra Costa County BUREAU, Super. Ct. Nos. J21-00101, J21- 00102) Plaintiff and Respondent, v. L.R., Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 L.R. (Mother) appeals from an order terminating her parental rights as to S.R. and E.R. (Children) under Welfare and Institutions Code2

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion under California

Standards of Judicial Administration section 8.1. We provide a limited factual summary because our opinion is unpublished and the parties know, or should know, “the facts of the case and its procedural history.” (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851.) In a nonpublished opinion, this court set forth the factual circumstances leading to the issuance of dispositional orders on the initial dependency petition. (In re A.R. (Feb. 28, 2022, A162954).) 2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions

Code.

section 366.26. Generally, Mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the juvenile court’s finding that Children were adoptable. Specifically, she ascribes to the prospective adoptive parents a potential legal impediment that would render them unable to adopt. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s determination that Children are likely to be adopted within a reasonable time, and we observe that Mother has forfeited her claim regarding any potential legal impediment by failing to raise that issue below. Accordingly, we affirm the order terminating parental rights. As a preliminary matter, we reject the contention of respondent Contra Costa County Children & Family Services Bureau (Bureau) that Mother’s appellate claims have been forfeited in their entirety. While “it is typically true that ‘ “points not urged in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal[,] [citation] [t]he contention that a judgment is not supported by substantial evidence . . . is an obvious exception to the rule.” ’ ” (In re B.D. (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 803, 823.) Consequently, we must “review 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” Children were likely to be adopted within a reasonable time.3 (In re Brian P.,