In re E.M.

Filed 4/14/06 In re E.M. CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Marilyn Kading-Martinez, Commissioner. Affirmed.

Jessie F. Rodriguez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Raymond G. Fortner, County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel and Liana Serobian, Associate County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________

Maria M. challenges the order of the juvenile court selecting adoption as the permanent plan for her children and terminating her parental rights. Mother argues that the evidence does not support the finding that the children are likely to be adopted. We find no error in that finding, and therefore affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

J. M. and E. M. came to the attention of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) in April 2002, following a report of emotional abuse and domestic violence caused by an alcoholic father. The parents entered into a voluntary family maintenance contract, but it was ineffective in preventing or eliminating the need to remove the children from the home. In April 2003, DCFS detained the children and filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 (all statutory references are to this code), alleging father's physical abuse of J. M., his acts of domestic violence in the presence of the children, his alcohol abuse, mother's failure to protect the children, and parents' non-compliance with the voluntary family maintenance contract.

The children were declared dependents of the court in May 2003. They were placed with their maternal aunt, then moved to a foster family in August 2003. During the first 14 months, the parents participated in reunification services and were found to be in varying degrees of compliance. But on one occasion in September 2004, father was drunk when he arrived for visitation, and in early October, he was arrested for spousal battery. At the contested 18-month review hearing in November 2004, the court found that return of the children to mother's custody would create a substantial risk of detriment to the children. The court terminated reunification services and set the matter for a section 366.26 permanency planning hearing.

In the February 28, 2005 report for the 366.26 hearing, DCFS stated that Mrs. P., the maternal grandmother, had come forward and offered to adopt the children. An adoptive home study was initiated, and the children were placed with Mrs. P. Adoption assessments had been completed on the children, and they were found to be physically healthy, developing age-appropriately, and enjoying school. They were found to be adoptable. DCFS had been in the process of identifying an adoptive family, but it suspended that effort once Mrs. P. expressed her willingness to adopt her grandchildren.

According to the February report, the children have known their grandmother since birth, and told the social worker they want to be adopted by her. Mrs. P. expressed a full commitment to caring for the children, and understood the responsibilities she would be undertaking. Mrs. P. was having difficulty completing the adoption home study paperwork due to her problems reading and writing in English.

As of April 2005, Mrs. P. still had to undergo a TB test, submit a copy of the results and a copy of her marriage certificate, and complete the questionnaire for her home study. Her husband needed to sign a spousal waiver and have it notarized. The 366.26 hearing was continued from April to June, and from June to August.

At the time of the section 366.26 hearing on August 1, 2005, Mrs. P.'s adoption home study dictation was complete, was to be submitted for the supervisor's approval on August 2, and was expected to be approved by August 8.

At the hearing, counsel for the children asked the court to continue the hearing to receive the approved home study before terminating parental rights. The court denied the request, explaining that all the records indicated the home study was going to be approved. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that the children were adoptable and terminated parental rights. Mother filed a timely appeal from this order.

DISCUSSION

Mother's only contention is that there was insufficient evidence to support the court's finding that the children were likely to be adopted. She bases this claim on the fact that at the time of the 366.26 hearing, the adoption home study had not been approved; there were no other prospective adoptive homes for the children; they were a sibling group and would otherwise be hard to difficult to place for adoption due to their ages; and they did not want to be adopted by anyone other than their maternal grandmother.

We take judicial notice of the order of the juvenile court, dated January 6, 2006, finding that the adoption home study for Mrs. P. was approved on September 8, 2005. With the approval of the home study, mother's concern about the finding of adoptability is fully satisfied. For this reason, we need not examine the other evidence which supports the court's finding.

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

EPSTEIN, P. J.

We concur:

CURRY, J.

WILLHITE, J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.

Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Apartment Manager Lawyers.

`