In re T.V.

Filed 8/15/06 In re T.V. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

S.V., father of the minor, appeals from orders of the juvenile court terminating his parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.)^[1] Appellant contends substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court's finding that the minor was likely to be adopted. We shall affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In January 2005, the infant, T.V., was removed from parental custody due to the parents' ongoing methamphetamine abuse and their inability to care for the minor. In April 2005, the juvenile court ordered the minor removed from the parents, denied reunification services based on their failure to reunify with the minor's six siblings and to treat their substance abuse problems, and set a section 366.26 hearing.

The August 2005 assessment for the hearing expressed concern that the minor might have developmental delays because he was not meeting developmental milestones. The almost six-month-old minor was evaluated and showed delays of one to two months on the mental development and psychomotor development indices. The evaluator recommended a second evaluation in six months. The minor was referred to Alta California Regional Center (Alta Regional) for services and the foster mother began massage therapy to reduce rigidity of his left side. The foster parent was unwilling to adopt the minor, whom the social worker did not consider to be generally adoptable. However, the social worker requested a continuance for homefinding and assessment of relatives living in Georgia, believing that aggressive efforts would result in a permanent adoptive placement. The court granted the continuance and ordered a second assessment of the minor's functioning.

In an addendum in November 2005, the social worker informed the court that the Georgia relatives, originally under consideration for placement, had withdrawn their request. The social worker continued to feel that it was likely an adoptive home would be found. The court again continued the hearing.

According to a second addendum in January 2006, the minor has been reassessed but the results were not yet available. The minor's Alta Regional worker reported the minor was making tremendous progress and was now sitting up, walking on his own and able to manipulate objects. The minor's physical therapist also reported he was doing well although there was still some left-side rigidity and the minor continued to hold his head slightly to the left. According to the foster parent, the minor was doing well and was inquisitive but continued to cry if he did not get constant attention. The addendum explained why the minor could not be placed with any of his siblings. Placement with an Oregon relative was being explored, although the relative initially had shown no interest in taking this minor, only the minor's siblings. In response to the social worker's recent contacts, the Oregon relative had agreed to take the minor, but it was unclear whether this change was genuine or the result of family pressure. Because this relative had prior approval to take some of the minor's siblings, the social worker only needed to update their homestudy. The social worker had also located an unrelated prospective adoptive parent willing to take the minor. This parent had experience dealing with developmentally delayed children. Out-of-county placement with this family had not yet occurred due to the apparent change of heart by the Oregon relatives. The addendum concluded that the minor was generally adoptable, noting that he had no medical problems and was currently meeting normal developmental milestones.

At the section 366.26 hearing, the juvenile court stated that it would consider the Oregon relative placement but doubted their commitment to the minor. The court terminated parental rights finding by clear and convincing evidence that the minor was likely to be adopted.

DISCUSSION

Appellant contends substantial evidence does not support the court's finding that the minor was likely to be adopted. Appellant argues that the minor was not generally adoptable due to his delays and there was no approved adoptive placement.

When the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding or order is challenged on appeal, even where the standard of proof in the trial court is clear and convincing, the reviewing court must determine if there is any substantial evidence‑‑that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible and of solid value‑‑to support the conclusion of the trier of fact. (In re Angelia P. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 908, 924; In re Jason L. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1206, 1214.) In making this determination we recognize that all conflicts are to be resolved in favor of the prevailing party and that issues of fact and credibility are questions for the trier of fact. (Jason L., supra, at p. 1214; In re Steve W. (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 10, 16.) The reviewing court may not reweigh the evidence when assessing the sufficiency of the evidence. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318-319.)

â€