In re J.G. CA1/1
A147881
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 6, 2016Background
- J.G., born ~2008, was made a dependent after mother (M.E.) acknowledged inability to care for him; he was placed with maternal relatives and foster care at various times from 2014–2016.
- Mother had a long history of housing instability, involvement in violent relationships, limited employment, and prior child welfare involvement; she received reunification services for ~24 months with only limited, inconsistent progress.
- J.G. was diagnosed with ADHD and disruptive behavior disorder; his behavior improved in a stable foster placement with medication and therapeutic services, though issues persisted when exposed to family contact.
- At the 18-month review the juvenile court terminated reunification services due to mother’s inadequate visitation and lack of stability and set a Welfare & Institutions Code § 366.26 permanency hearing.
- At the § 366.26 hearing (March 29, 2016) the court found by clear and convincing evidence J.G. was likely to be adopted and terminated parental rights; mother appealed arguing insufficient evidence of adoptability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Agency) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was clear and convincing evidence J.G. was likely to be adopted within a reasonable time | J.G.’s young age, good physical health, improved behavior in foster care, bonding capacity, and stability in placement supported likely adoption | Mother argued J.G.’s behavioral/mental health issues and lack of a committed adoptive family made him unadoptable; no adoptive placement existed | Court affirmed: substantial evidence supports adoptability finding; absence of identified adoptive parents is not dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Zeth S. v. Superior Court, 31 Cal.4th 396 (standard for adoptability; adoption likely within a reasonable time must be shown by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Sarah M., 22 Cal.App.4th 1642 (adoptability focuses on child’s age, condition, emotional health—not whether a specific adoptive family is already identified)
- In re Gregory A., 126 Cal.App.4th 1554 (standard of review for adoptability findings: substantial evidence)
- Amelia S. v. Superior Court, 229 Cal.App.3d 1060 (distinguishable—sibling sets and ‘‘hard to place’’ findings required different analysis)
- In re Tamneisha S., 58 Cal.App.4th 798 (agency’s long, unsuccessful search for adoptive home can support finding adoption unlikely)
- In re Michael G., 147 Cal.App.3d 56 (example of a child truly ‘‘special needs’’ where adoptability was conceded to be difficult)
- In re Jeremy S., 89 Cal.App.4th 514 (medical/behavioral problems do not render a child unadoptable when they do not impede adoptability)