In re Edgar M.
Filed 5/30/13 In re Edgar M. CA2/6
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
In re EDGAR M. el al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile
Court Law.
2d Juv. No. B244882
(Super. Ct.
No. J1379615, J1379616, J1379617)
(Santa
Barbara County)
SANTA BARBARA
COUNTY
CHILD
WELFARE SERVICES,
Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
MONICA M.,
Defendant and
Appellant.
Monica M. (mother)
appeals from the juvenile court orders
terminating parental rights to her son, Edgar, and establishing adoption as his
permanent plan (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26).
adoptability is not supported by substantial evidence.
BACKGROUND
In October 2010, 9-year-old Edgar lived in Santa Maria with mother and his sisters, 7-year-old Ana, and 6-year-old
Norma. Vidal M. (presumed father) did
not live with the family. On October 19, 2010, school personnel called mother because Norma could not
talk or move her right arm. When mother
picked her up, Norma was limping and making only one-word statements. Several hours later, mother took her to a
hospital in Santa
Maria. The doctors concluded she had had a
stroke. Further testing revealed that
Norma had several recent and older brain infarctions and a "non-accidental
trauma vertebral artery dissection" in her neck. The doctors concluded she was a child abuse
victim and contacted Santa Barbara County Child Welfare Services (CWS). CWS received inconsistent information from
mother and the children regarding Norma's injuries. On November 1, 2010, CWS took the children into protective custody.
On November 3, 2010, CWS filed dependency
petitions on behalf of Edgar, Ana, and Norma, alleging failure to protect
and support, with sibling abuse allegations as to Ana and Edgar. (§ 300, subds. (a), (b), (g) & (j).)
detention proceedings and removed the children from mother's custody.
On January 20, 2011, the juvenile court found
that the allegations of the petitions were true, declared the children
dependents of the court, and ordered that they remain in out-of-home care. The court ordered
family reunification services.
The CWS reports showed that while mother was
affectionate during her visits, she never progressed beyond supervised
visitation. In December 2011, mother
upset Norma and Edgar by cutting a scheduled two-hour visit to one hour because
Ana was not attending. In January 2012,
CWS reported that the children did not want to visit mother without supervision
until they were sure she would no longer get mad at them. According to her therapist, mother lacked
empathy and did not understand how her behavior could impact the children. For example, during a visit, she told them
their father was killed in Mexico. She
showed them a picture of her boyfriend, said he would be their new father, and
told them she was pregnant. For the next
several weeks, Ana refused to visit mother, and wanted the dependency court to
order her adoption. In its April 23,
2012 report, CWS advised the juvenile court that none of the children were
ready to live with mother, because they were unsure if she would still be mean
to them. On June 18, 2012, mother tried
to kidnap Ana. Ana hid outside her
foster home, crying and trembling. She
and Norma were never again willing to visit mother.
The CWS September 24, 2012, section 366.26
report recommended that the court terminate parental rights and select adoption
as the permanent plan for the children.
Edgar had lived in four foster homes.
After Edgar lived in one foster home for seven months, CWS placed him in
a home with his sisters. When the
parents in that home could not meet the children's needs, CWS placed them in
another foster home. Edgar became
increasingly aggressive toward Ana and Norma.
On August 15, 2012, CWS moved Edgar into a fourth foster home with
concurrent planning parents who had wished to adopt a son for many years. Edgar said that he felt like part of their
family, and like a "normal kid," and wanted them to adopt him if he
could not return to mother.
On October 25, 2012, the parties appeared
before the juvenile court and submitted on the evidence in the section 366.26
report. The court found that it was
likely that Edgar, Ana and Norma would each be adopted, and ordered the
termination of parental rights.
DISCUSSION
Mother
contends the juvenile court erred in finding Edgar to be adoptable. More specifically, she argues that his
behavior problems made it unlikely that any family would be willing to adopt
him. We disagree.
"'The
juvenile court may terminate parental rights only if it determines by clear and
convincing evidence that it is likely the child will be adopted within a
reasonable time. '" (
1554, 1561.) In making the adoptability
determination, the court focuses on whether the child's age, physical
condition, and emotional state make it difficult to find an adoptive home for
the child. (Ibid.) The existence of
prospective adoptive parents is an important factor because their willingness
to adopt generally indicates the minor is likely to be adopted within a
reasonable time either by the prospective adoptive parents or some other
family. (In re Josue G. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 725, 733; see also
1400, 1408.) Although the finding must
be based on clear and convincing evidence, we give the order the benefit of
every reasonable inference and resolve any evidentiary conflicts in favor of
the order (the judgment). (
finding of adoptability. (In re Josue G.,
at p. 732.)
Edgar
was a good student, in overall good health, with no developmental
problems. In arguing that his behavior
made Edgar unadoptable, mother primarily emphasizes his negative behavior in
two foster care homes. She cites his
lying, stealing, hitting his sisters, and sharpening a branch to make a
"knife," and his attempts to manipulate his foster parents. (AOB 13-14.)
Much of that behavior occurred after mother tried to kidnap Ana, and
after she bluntly told the children that their father had been killed and that
her boyfriend would be their new father.
Moreover,
mother discounts evidence that Edgar exhibited positive behavior for much of
his dependency, and asserts that like his prior foster parents, the concurrent
planning parents would soon reject him.
The record does not support her contention that Edgar's negative
behavior is likely to reappear, or that his behavior is likely to dissuade
anyone from adopting him. Edgar stayed
in his first foster home for seven months, with no report that his foster family
sought his removal. Before he was placed
in his concurrent planning home, Edgar had frequent visits with the family, and
they expressed their interest in adopting him.
The foster parents told CWS that Edgar fit into their family perfectly,
and called their parents "abuelita and abuelito" (grandmother and
grandfather, in Spanish). According to
his court appointed special advocate (CASA), Edgar responded well to the
considerable amount of structure in his concurrent planning home. The CASA observed that Edgar seemed to enjoy
being the youngest family member and receiving attention from the family's two
teenage daughters, as well as the parents.
Mother
suggests that the juvenile court had reservations regarding Edgar's
adoptability, as evidenced by the following statement it made on September 24,
2012: "I did have some
questions about adoptability for Edgar at this point." The record indicates otherwise. The court's questions apparently concerned an
error in a report. Finally, mother
claims that the order finding Edgar to be adoptable was premature, based upon
the absence of an adoption report, and incomplete information regarding Edgar
in the CWS reports. She forfeited such
claims by failing to raise them in the juvenile court. (See In re Brian P. (2002)
99 Cal.App.4th 616, 623.)
DISPOSITION
The orders finding Edgar to be adoptable and
terminating parental rights are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
PERREN,
J.
We concur:
GILBERT, P.J.
YEGAN, J.
>
Arthur A. Garcia, Judge
Superior Court County of Santa Barbara
______________________________
Jack A. Love, under appointment by the Court
of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dennis A. Marshall,
County Counsel, Maria Salido Novatt, Sr. Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff
and Respondent.
Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.
Edgar's two sisters. Mother appealed
from all such orders. Her brief,
however, challenges only those orders that concern Edgar. The court also terminated the parental rights
of presumed father, Vidal M., who did not appear below, and has not appeared
before this court.
