In re D.F.
Filed 4/17/06 In re D.F. CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
| In re D.F., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. L.G. et al., Defendants and Appellants. | D047488 (Super. Ct. No. J515098) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Cynthia A. Bashant, Judge. Affirmed.
L.G. (Mother) and I.F. (Father) appeal the judgment terminating their parental rights over D.F. They contend there was insufficient evidence that D.F. was likely to be adopted within a reasonable time. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In July 2003 when D.F. was four years old, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency filed a dependency petition because he was exposed to violent confrontations between Mother and a maternal relative. D.F. was detained at Polinsky Children's Center (Polinsky), then in an emergency shelter care home, then in a foster home where he was subsequently placed. In early 2004, he was moved to a new foster home.
On September 26, 2005, after a transition period, D.F. was moved to a prospective adoptive home where he remains. The Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing took place on October 26.
DISCUSSION
"The issue of adoptability . . . 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." (In re Sarah M. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1642, 1649, italics omitted.) An adoptability finding does not require "that the minor already be in a potential adoptive home or that there be a proposed adoptive parent 'waiting in the wings.' [Citations.]" (Ibid.) "All that is required is clear and convincing evidence that adoption will be realized within a reasonable time." (In re Zeth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 396, 506, citing In re Jennilee T. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 212, 223.) "[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 Lukas B. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1145, 1154.) Neither behavioral problems (ibid.) nor a risk of future developmental problems (In re Jennilee T., supra, 3 Cal.App.4th at pp. 224-225) necessarily precludes an adoptability finding. Here, substantial evidence supports the finding. (In re Josue G. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 725, 732; In re J.I. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 903, 911; In re Lukas B., supra, 79 Cal.App.4th at p. 1154.)
At the outset of this case, D.F. had borderline developmental delays and speech difficulties and received Social Security benefits. Father reported that before the detention, when D.F. did not get his way, he became angry, threw things, and cried.[1] At Polinsky, however, there were no reports of behavioral problems. The foster parent in D.F.'s emergency shelter care home was willing to care for him longer than her usual 30‑day period, but changed her mind due to problems caused by Mother and the maternal grandmother.
After D.F.'s stay in emergency shelter care, he adjusted well to his new foster home. He began attending Head Start and his speech improved. The foster parent had difficulty managing his behavior, however. When she gave him directions, he often threw a tantrum. He banged his head on the wall, threw things, and screamed for as long as 30 minutes. On one occasion, when they were in the car, he kicked the back of the foster parent's seat and she had to remove his shoes until he stopped. She decided that she could no longer care for him.
D.F.'s therapist believed that the foster parent might have been too firm with D.F. The therapist also reported that D.F. was feisty and argumentative, with a short attention span, and seemed to react to disappointment the same way Mother did. After tantrums, however, he realized that he had misbehaved. The therapist recommended that he be evaluated for medication to control his tantrums. D.F.'s physician subsequently declined to prescribe medication, noting that his Head Start teacher reported that he was rarely hyperactive.
D.F.'s troublesome behavior did not continue in his next foster home. He did very well there despite Mother's frequent attempts to sabotage the placement. His speech and development improved. The foster parent reported that while D.F. had some problems, they were normal for his age.
A July 2004 comprehensive developmental evaluation concluded that D.F.'s overall cognitive functioning was in the low average range, with average nonverbal skills and low average verbal reasoning skills. His gross motor skills were slightly below average but not a significant concern. His behavioral and social functioning were largely within normal limits, although there were some behavioral and emotional symptoms including nighttime bedwetting and nightmares. The evaluator believed that those symptoms might result from past psychosocial stressors that continued.
By January 2005 D.F. had started kindergarten, where he worked at grade level and made excellent progress. In June a psychiatrist diagnosed attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and behavioral problem not otherwise specified, and recommended that D.F. be given psychotropic medication to address his hyperactivity and aggression. At Mother's or Father's request, the court ordered that a hearing be set on the recommendation. Apparently, a hearing never took place.
D.F.'s prospective adoptive parents were aware that his development was in the low average range and that he suffered from bedwetting and nightmares. They were willing to work with him. He adjusted well to their home and to his new school and responded well to the affection and attention he received in the home. He was happy, although he sometimes worried about Mother. He had stopped speech therapy.
Six-year-old D.F. was cheerful and friendly. The social worker believed that he was adoptable due to his age, engaging personality, good health, and lack of a beneficial relationship with Mother and Father. While his prospective adoptive family was loving and committed, if that family became unavailable there were at least two other families interested in a child with his characteristics. One of those families had specifically expressed an interest in D.F., and there were more than 80 prospective adoptive homes outside the county.
The juvenile court did not err by finding D.F. adoptable.
DISPOSITION
Judgment affirmed.
HALLER, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
McDONALD, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Apartment Manager Attorneys.
[1] Mother contends that "[t]here is some question about whether [D.F.] was born testing positive for drugs." The portion of the record she cites merely refers to Father's statement, "I don't know if [D. F.] was born positive for marijuana or drugs."
