California Court of Appeal Mar 29, 2016 No. E064624Unpublished
Filed 3/29/16 In re A.T. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re A.T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, E064624
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. J249239)
v. OPINION
J.T.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Annemarie G.
Pace, Judge. Affirmed.
Mitchell Keiter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Jean-Rene Basle, County Counsel, Adam E. Ebright, Deputy County Counsel, for
Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
A juvenile court terminated the parental rights of appellant J.T. (mother) as to her
daughter, A.T. (the child). On appeal, mother claims there was insufficient evidence to
support the finding that the child was likely to be adopted. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On April 22, 2013, the San Bernardino County Children and Family Services
sets a section 366.26 hearing, the agency supervising the child must prepare an
assessment that includes an “evaluation of the child’s medical, developmental, scholastic,
mental, and emotional status.” Mother further contends that “the subdivision (i)(1)(D)
requirement . . . leaves the most ‘substantial doubt’ about [the child’s] adoptability.”
That subdivision provides that the assessment must also include “[a] preliminary
assessment of the eligibility and commitment of any identified prospective adoptive
parent, including . . . the capability to meet the child’s needs . . . .” Mother argues that
the evidence did not show that the PAM “had the capability to meet [the child’s] needs,
primarily because the record does not establish that she comprehended them all.”
Mother’s arguments are misplaced. “The issue of adoptability posed in a section
366.26 hearing focuses on the minor.” (Sarah M., supra, 22 Cal.App.4th at p. 1649.) In
other words, “questions concerning the ‘suitability’ of a prospective adoptive family are
irrelevant to the issue whether the minors are likely to be adopted.” (In re Scott M.
(1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 839, 844.) “Rather, the question of a family’s suitability to adopt
is an issue which is reserved for the subsequent adoption proceeding.” (Ibid.) Here, the
social worker’s opinion that the child was likely to be adopted was not based solely on
the PAM’s desire to adopt her, as mother suggests. The social worker opined that the
9
child was appropriate for adoption due to her young age, as well as the PAM’s
willingness to adopt her.
Furthermore, while there was evidence that the child had various medical
conditions stemming from her spina bifida, there was nevertheless sufficient evidence to
support the court’s finding that she was adoptable. As the Sarah M. court stated: “We
recognize that in some cases a minor who ordinarily might be considered unadoptable
due to age, poor physical health, physical disability, or emotional instability is
nonetheless likely to be adopted because a prospective adoptive family has been
identified as willing to adopt the child.” (Sarah M., supra, 22 Cal.App.4th at p. 1650.)
Thus, the very fact that the child had been placed with a parent who was willing to adopt
her was sufficient evidence that she was adoptable. (Ibid. [“a prospective adoptive
parent’s willingness to adopt generally indicates the minor is likely to be adopted within a
reasonable time . . . .”].) Moreover, the PAM appeared to be fully capable of meeting the
child’s needs. She was a registered nurse, which meant she would be in a better position
than most to understand and provide care for the child’s needs. The child had been living
with the PAM for several weeks, which indicates she was well aware of the child’s
medical conditions. She was still fully committed to adopting the child.
10
We conclude that the court properly found clear and convincing evidence that the
child was adoptable.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
HOLLENHORST Acting P. J.
We concur:
McKINSTER J.
MILLER J.
11
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's finding by clear and convincing evidence that the child was likely to be adopted within a reasonable time.
Issues
Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that the child was likely to be adopted.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The juvenile court may terminate parental rights only if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that it is likely the child will be adopted within a reasonable time.”
“questions concerning the ‘suitability’ of a prospective adoptive family are irrelevant to the issue whether the minors are likely to be adopted.”