In re Gabriel G.

Filed 9/7/06 In re Gabriel G. CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In this juvenile dependency matter, Stephanie G. (mother) appeals from an order of the juvenile court terminating parental rights and ordering her sons Gabriel and Roland placed for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (b)(1).)[1] Mother contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the finding that the boys are adoptable. We disagree and affirm.

I. Facts

A. Background[2]

Gabriel and Roland were taken into protective custody on March 17, 2004, when Gabriel was four and Roland was two years old. At the disposition hearing the juvenile court denied reunification services due to mother's failure to reunify with two older children[3] and set a section 366.26 hearing to select a permanent placement plan for the children.

The Santa Clara County Department of Family and Children's Services (Department) first placed Gabriel and Roland together but the two soon had to be separated because they fought viciously with each other. Roland was very angry and often had uncontrollable tantrums. He was cute, energetic, and playful at times but at other times he was violent and aggressive, striking out at others and also hurting himself. Roland had some speech problems and needed dental work but he was otherwise healthy. Gabriel was also a healthy and attractive child. He struggled to keep up in kindergarten but the school's principal did not believe that he would need special education.

At the section 366.26 hearing on April 25, 2005, the trial court found that termination of parental rights would not be detrimental to the children and that Gabriel and Roland had a probability of adoption but were difficult to place. Neither child was in a stable placement at the time. The social worker felt that it would be in their interest to be placed together and that if such a placement could be secured it might improve Roland's behavior. The court identified adoption as the permanent placement goal and ordered the Department to try and locate an appropriate adoptive family for a period not to exceed 180 days. (§ 366.26, subd. (b)(2).)[4] The next hearing was set for October 18, 2005.

B. The Current Placement

On May 24, 2005, the Department requested an order permitting Roland to receive medication to treat his behavioral problems. Dr. Richard Gilbert, a psychiatrist, had diagnosed Roland as having attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, and pediatric bipolar disorder. The doctor described Roland as â€