In re T.E. CA4/1

Filed 10/7/20 In re T.E. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re T.E., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D077501 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. J515545B)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.P.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Ana L. Espana, Judge. Affirmed. Monica Vogelmann, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, Caitlin E. Rae, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Tahra Broderson, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

M.P. (Father) appeals an order terminating his parental rights in the juvenile dependency case involving his minor son, T.E., following a selection and implementation hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section

366.26.1 Father contends the trial court erred in finding T.E. to be specifically adoptable. He argues that because T.E., who was 11 years old at the time of the hearing, was equivocal about his interest in adoption, his potential opposition to adoption was sufficient to undermine the trial court’s finding that he was adoptable. He suggests it would have been prudent to delay the hearing to allow T.E. to turn 12 years old, at which point his consent to adoption would be necessary. We disagree. Affording the trial court’s findings the usual deference, we conclude the juvenile court did not err in making its ruling. Accordingly, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY In July 2017, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) petitioned the juvenile court under section 300, subdivision (b), on behalf of eight-year-old T.E. The Agency alleged that Father and L.E. (Mother) were failing to provide T.E. with adequate nutrition