Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ethan was born in August 2013 to N.E. and Carlos M. In August 2023, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services received a referral alleging neglect and physical and emotional abuse by Mother. The juvenile court authorized Ethan's removal, and the Department placed him with his paternal aunts, M.C. and P.S., where he remained throughout the proceedings. The Department's section 300 petition alleged physical abuse, endangering mental and emotional problems, inadequate food and supervision, and emotional abuse resulting in suicidal ideation. The court sustained the petition in December 2023, removed Ethan from both parents' custody, and granted Mother reunification services and visitation and ordered her to complete a case plan.
At the 12-month review, the court found that Mother had not participated in any aspect of her case plan and had not visited Ethan since the case began; it terminated her reunification services. Meanwhile, Ethan's aunts met his medical, therapeutic, educational, and social needs. He progressed academically, addressed his trauma in therapy, developed a healthy attachment to them, and looked forward to their adopting him. The Department reported that all adoption-readiness tasks were complete and recommended adoption and termination of parental rights.
At the April 2026 section 366.26 hearing, Mother's counsel requested legal guardianship or long-term foster care and stated that termination would be over Mother's objection, without identifying grounds or arguing that a legal impediment barred the aunts' adoption. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that Ethan was adoptable, no legal impediments existed, no statutory exception applied, and termination would not be detrimental. It terminated all parental rights, transferred Ethan's care, custody, and control to the Department for adoptive planning, and designated the aunts as prospective adoptive parents. Mother timely appealed; Carlos, who was serving an 11-year prison sentence, did not appeal termination of his rights.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal explained that adoption is preferred when reunification is not probable, but implementation requires clear and convincing evidence that the child is likely to be adopted. General adoptability focuses on whether the child's age, physical condition, and emotional state would make finding an adoptive family difficult. When a child is adoptable only because a particular family is willing to adopt, the inquiry instead turns to legal impediments and that family's ability to meet the child's needs. Review was for substantial evidence, with the record viewed favorably to the prevailing party and deference given to credibility determinations, conflict resolution, and reasonable inferences.
The court held that Mother had not preserved her legal-impediment claim because she did not raise it in the juvenile court, but it resolved the appeal on general adoptability. Mother conceded Ethan's good physical and emotional health, and the record showed he was happy, had friends and hobbies, made the honor roll, worked through trauma, expressed his emotions, and bonded with his aunts, supplying substantial evidence of the implied general-adoptability finding.
The court rejected Mother's reliance on section 366.26, subdivision (c)(2)(B)(3), and its reference to children seven or older as potentially difficult to place. That provision applies only when no identified or available prospective adoptive parent exists, whereas Ethan's aunts had been designated. Age was only one factor, and the appellate court would not reweigh it against the positive evidence. Ethan's successful placement with committed prospective adoptive parents for nearly three years also supported a reasonable inference that another family would adopt him if they did not. Because substantial evidence established general adoptability, the court did not decide Mother's contentions concerning M.C.'s husband's consent or the aunts' ability to adopt jointly. It affirmed the order terminating parental rights and selecting adoption.
Key Takeaways
- A child's age alone did not defeat general adoptability when the record showed good physical and emotional health, academic and therapeutic progress, and strong interpersonal attachments.
- The statutory difficult-to-place provision concerning children seven or older did not apply because Ethan had identified and available prospective adoptive parents.
- Mother's failure to raise the alleged legal impediments in the juvenile court resulted in appellate forfeiture of that claim.
- A supported finding of general adoptability made it unnecessary for the appellate court to examine the suitability of, or alleged legal impediments specific to, the prospective adoptive family.
- The nearly three-year successful placement and the aunts' commitment to adoption supported the likelihood that Ethan would be adopted within a reasonable time.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the practical distinction between general and specific adoptability under section 366.26. Evidence about the child's own condition and prospects can sustain general adoptability without requiring the appellate court to resolve objections directed solely at the proposed adoptive household. It also shows how an identified prospective family can make the statutory difficult-to-place pathway inapplicable even when the child is older than seven.
The opinion leaves unresolved Mother's proposed legal theories about spousal consent and joint adoption by these particular aunts; the court expressly declined to consider them after affirming general adoptability. Its affirmance upholds the termination and adoption-planning order, not a completed adoption, and the unpublished opinion is subject to California's restrictions on citation and reliance.