Filed 6/30/17 In re J.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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 J.T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.L.,

Defendant and Appellant.


E068072

(Super.Ct.No. J256337)

OPINION


APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Annemarie G. Pace, Judge. Affirmed.
Daniel G. Rooney, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Jean-Rene Basle, County Counsel, Dawn Martin, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
The juvenile court found J.T. (Minor) was generally and specifically adoptable. The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of defendant and appellant J.L. (Mother). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (b)(1).) Mother contends the juvenile court erred by finding Minor is generally and specifically adoptable. We affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. BACKGROUND
Mother graduated from Twentynine Palms High School. Minor is male and was born in August 2012. Mother was homeless. For approximately one year, Mother lived in various shelters in and around San Luis Obispo. Mother lived with a friend, “Nico,” in Yucca Valley for “a few weeks.” Mother left Nico’s residence due to inappropriate sexual contact between Nico and Minor. Mother moved to Twentynine Palms, where she resided with S.K. (Roommate).
B. 2014
In regard to Mother, the juvenile court found the following allegations to be true: (1) Minor suffered serious physical harm in Mother’s care, Minor’s injuries were inflicted by Roommate (§ 300, subd. (a)); and (2) Mother failed to protect Minor from Roommate’s abuse and Mother failed to obtain medical care for Minor’s injuries (§ 300, subd. (b)).
Minor was removed from Mother’s physical custody in September 2014. Minor was malnourished; he weighed 19 pounds. Plaintiff and respondent San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (the Department) placed Minor in the home of M.T., who was previously married to Mother’s brother (non-related extended family member [NREFM]).
On September 29, 2014, a developmental assessment of Minor was conducted. Minor was delayed “in all areas.” In October 2014, the Department requested Minor be removed from his placement because the NREFM’s home lacked food, stimuli for a child, and stability. Minor was moved to a foster home.
In December 2014, Minor was assessed by two doctors. According to Minor’s foster father, Minor “rarely if ever smiled.” The doctor’s assessment reflected this was an indicator of anxiety and/or depression. Minor was aggressive and self-abusive. Minor bit his own tongue, scratched himself, banged his head, hit others, and bit others. Minor was more aggressive with females than males. Minor was found to be 10 months developmentally delayed. Minor was diagnosed as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The doctor explained that Minor’s PTSD was so extreme that Minor might need to be hospitalized and chemically restrained.
C. 2015
On February 11, 2015, another medical assessment of Minor was conducted. It was discovered that Minor suffered from “significant hearing impairment.” A therapist believed the hearing impairment might be the cause of Minor’s speech delays and behavioral issues. Minor’s behavior improved—he was calmer and consolable. When Minor became upset, the emotion lasted for 10 minutes, rather than three hours.
In April, Minor weighed 24 pounds. Minor’s behavior continued to improve. Minor had fewer angry outbursts and could be soothed when he became upset. However, there were still occasions when Minor was “highly agitated for extended periods of time.”
On October 15, Mother was arrested for assault with a deadly weapon. Mother was incarcerated. While Mother was incarcerated, Minor’s behavior continued to improve. On December 29, Minor and Mother visited for the first time since her incarceration. Minor had a “severe reaction” to the visit. Minor entered into a dissociative state. Minor stopped sleeping and eating; he cried and was inconsolable.
D. 2016
Minor’s foster parents took him to the hospital due to the decline in his behavior and lack of eating. Minor was admitted to the hospital on January 8, 2016. Minor had not gained weight during the year. Minor was assessed as being 1.5 years developmentally delayed. Minor was “diagnosed with non-organic failure to thrive, due to his diagnosis of PTSD.” It was concluded Minor needed a higher level of care, such as a foster home for medically fragile children. Minor was released from the hospital on January 12. Minor moved to a different foster home.
Minor had a medical evaluation in July. Minor gained two pounds, which was considered “substantial.” Minor’s behavior improved; he no longer suffered extended tantrums. Minor was an active child with “a very pleasant disposition.” Minor could say two and three word phrases. Minor laughed and played freely with his foster parents and foster sibling.
In July, Minor’s paternal great-aunt and great-uncle (Aunt and Uncle) sought to adopt Minor. Aunt and Uncle were aware of Minor’s past behavioral difficulties. Minor’s current foster parents (Foster Parents) were also interested in adopting Minor, if Aunt and Uncle were unable to adopt.
In December, Minor’s Foster Parents expressed doubt about adopting him, due to (1) their advanced age; (2) Minor’s special needs; and (3) not being of the same ethnicity as Minor. In regard to Minor’s special needs, Foster Parents wanted “more time, assessments, and services in order to make a more informed decision about the adoption.” In particular, they wanted to know more about Minor’s “trajectory.” Aunt and Uncle sought to suspend their own involvement in Minor’s prospective adoption due to Aunt and Uncle divorcing.
Minor’s behavior was good while at therapy and at home. However, at school, Minor suffered tantrums several times a day, hit other students, and hit teachers. It was unclear what was causing Minor’s tantrums, e.g., a mental health disorder or a developmental delay.
E. 2017
An April 2017 report reflected a school psychologist diagnosed Minor with autism. A neurologist decided not to diagnose Minor with an intellectual disability because the neurologist believed more services could boost Minor’s development. Minor was developmentally delayed “in multiple areas.” Minor had gained weight. He was still underweight, but no longer classified as a child with special medical needs. Minor attended special education classes, was learning social skills and how to follow directions. Minor appeared happy at home.
Foster Parents wanted to adopt Minor. Foster Parents said, “‘We are so pleased he is developing so well now. We have loads of fun just being silly and playful.’” When asked why they wanted to adopt Minor, Foster Parents said, “‘[Minor] has been with us for over a year where he has grown and adapted to our family unit and fits in so well now. We wouldn’t think of life without him. We love [Minor] and want the best future for him.’”
F. HEARING
The juvenile court said the following in regard to Minor’s adoptability: “The report indicates the progress that [Minor] has made, how well he’s doing in school, that he’s getting all [the] services he needs. And based on all of that and his age, I am going to find that he’s both generally and specifically adoptable. [¶] The case law makes clear that some limitations in the child’s life don’t necessarily mean that he is not generally adoptable. And he is specifically adoptable as reflected in the report.”
DISCUSSION
A. CONTENTION
Mother contends the juvenile court erred by finding Minor is generally and specifically adoptable.
B. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We apply the substantial evidence standard of review. Under that standard, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s finding. We make all reasonable inferences in favor of the finding and resolve all conflicts in support of the finding. (In re Josue G. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 725, 732.)
C. GENERAL ADOPTABILITY
1. LAW
For adoption to be ordered as a child’s permanent plan, the juvenile court must find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the child is likely to be adopted. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1).) A finding of general 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.)
“‘Usually, the fact that a prospective adoptive parent has expressed interest in adopting the minor is evidence that the minor’s age, physical condition, mental state, and other matters relating to the child are not likely to dissuade individuals from adopting the minor. In other words, 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.)
2. ANALYSIS
We address each factor in turn, starting with age. Minor was four years old at the time of the adoptability finding. Minor’s youth supports the finding that he is adoptable. (See In re Sarah M., supra, 22 Cal.App.4th at p. 1651 [young age helps child to be adoptable].)
Second, is Minor’s physical condition. Minor was underweight, but gaining weight. Minor required eyeglasses. Minor is “active.” Minor’s foster family took him to parks, parties, beaches, lakes, and amusement parks. Thus, the evidence reflects Minor is able to participate in family activities. The evidence of Minor’s physical capabilities supports the finding that Minor is adoptable because Minor is an active child who can physically participate in family events.
Third, is Minor’s mental state. Minor is developmentally delayed. Minor has developmental disorders related to speech and language. Minor’s treatment plan includes a daily preschool program. The school district provided Minor with speech therapy and occupational therapy. A neurologist decided to wait to diagnose Minor because s/he wanted “to see if more services can boost [Minor’s] development.” Minor attended special education classes at school. Minor was learning social skills and how to follow directions. Minor was doing well in school.
The evidence reflects Minor has hurdles ahead of him in regard to his developmental growth. However, a neurologist believed services might be able to help Minor’s progress, and Minor was doing well in school. Thus, Minor’s developmental difficulties are not so extreme as to render him unadoptable. Minor has special educational needs, but given that his needs can be met, the evidence supports the finding that he is adoptable.
Fourth, is Minor’s emotional state. When Minor was two years old, he “rarely if ever smiled.” Minor was aggressive and self-abusive. The doctor explained that Minor’s PTSD was so extreme that Minor might need to be hospitalized and chemically restrained. Two years later, when Minor was four years old, he had “loads of fun just being stilly and playful” with his foster family. At home, Minor was “[w]onderful, loving, and friendly.” Minor had tantrums at school, but not at home or at therapy.
This evidence supports a finding that Minor’s emotional state is improving. Minor still has emotional outbursts at school, but he is progressing in a positive direction in that he no longer has such outbursts at home or at therapy. Given that Minor is “[w]onderful, loving, and friendly” at home, and his emotional state is improving overall, the evidence supports a finding that Minor is adoptable.
As noted ante, evidence that people are willing to adopt the child can also support a finding that the child is generally adoptable. (In re Lukas B., supra, 79 Cal.App.4th at p. 1154.) The evidence reflects Foster Parents wanted to adopt Minor because they could not imagine their family without him. Additionally, Aunt and Uncle wanted to adopt Minor, but were unable to do so due to their divorce. Aunt and Uncle were aware of Minor’s past behavioral difficulties when they expressed their desire to adopt him. This evidence reflects there were two families who were aware of Minor’s behavioral issues and were interested in adopting Minor This evidence reflects Minor’s behavioral issues have not prevented families from wanting to adopt Minor
In sum, the record reflects Minor is young, physically capable of participating in family activities, doing well in school, and loving and friendly at home. We conclude substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that Minor is generally adoptable.
D. SPECIFIC ADOPTABILITY
A child who is not generally adoptable may be specifically adoptable, which means “the child is deemed adoptable based solely on the fact that a particular family is willing to adopt him or her.” (In re Carl R. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1051, 1061.) Because we have concluded substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that Minor is generally adoptable, we do not address the issue of specific adoptability. (Ibid [if child is generally adoptable we do not examine the prospective adoptive home].)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS


MILLER
Acting P. J.


We concur:


CODRINGTON
J.


FIELDS
J.