Filed 5/31/13 In re Katelyn P. CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re KATELYN P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND D062898 HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. NJ014348) v. CHRISTINA P., Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael
J. Imhoff, Commissioner. Affirmed.
Christina P. appeals an order terminating her parental rights to her daughter,
Katelyn P., under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.1 She contends the
assessment prepared by the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency for
1 Unless otherwise indicated, further references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. the section 366.26 hearing was inadequate and there is not substantial evidence to support
the finding that Katelyn was likely to be adopted within a reasonable time. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Five-year old Katelyn P. is the daughter of Christina P. In August 2010, Katelyn
was adjudicated a dependent of the juvenile court due to her mother's inability to provide
regular care to her.2 Christina suffers from a serious mental health disorder and was
repeatedly institutionalized or incarcerated during Katelyn's dependency proceedings.
According to her evaluating psychologist, it was highly unlikely that Christina would
ever attain adequate psychological functioning to permit her to safely parent a young
child.
In April 2012, at the 12-month review hearing, the court terminated reunification
services, set a section 366.26 hearing and ordered the Agency to prepare an assessment as
required by section 366.21, subdivision (i). The section 366.26 hearing was held on
October 10, 2012. The court received the Agency's section 366.26 report, which included
the assessment, and addendum reports in evidence. The court accepted Christina's
stipulated testimony.
2 On our own motion, we take judicial notice of this court's opinion In re Katelyn P. (Feb. 28, 2011, D058104) [nonpub]. This opinion details the events leading to Katelyn's detention in protective custody in June 2010 to the jurisdictional and dispositional hearings in August 2010. 2 The Agency reported that Katelyn was a healthy, curious and energetic four-year
old without developmental delays or concerns. Katelyn had excellent language skills and
was becoming fluent in English and French. She occasionally had temper tantrums when
redirected.
During the dependency proceedings, Katelyn had four placements. She was
placed in a foster care home from June to December 2010. In December, Katelyn was
placed in the care of her maternal grandfather, William P., for approximately three
weeks. When issues arose concerning Katelyn's care by other family members while her
grandfather was at work, the Agency returned Katelyn to her first foster home. In
November 2011, the Agency placed Katelyn in a concurrent family foster home with
caregivers who were willing to provide a permanent home to her if needed.
Katelyn had lived with her mother in the home of her maternal grandfather until
she was almost two and a half years old, when dependency proceedings were initiated.
When not at work, Katelyn's grandfather was her primary caregiver. He maintained
regular contact with Katelyn throughout her dependency proceedings. They visited twice
a week for four hours. Later, because of financial pressures, the grandfather reduced
their visits to once a week. Currently, he was visiting Katelyn twice a month. Katelyn
enjoyed her visits with her grandfather. He read to her and took her to the library, park
and pool. They went on walks together and attended church. Katelyn's caregivers were
willing to continue to facilitate contact between Katelyn and her grandfather if they
became her adoptive parents.
3 According to the social worker, Katelyn had formed a loving attachment to her
caregivers, who loved her unconditionally. They provided a safe, stable and nurturing
home to Katelyn and were fully committed to making her a permanent part of their
family through adoption. They had an approved adoptive home study. If for some
reason they were unable to adopt her, there were 20 other families in San Diego County
with approved adoptive home studies who were interested in adopting a child like
Katelyn.
The social worker reported that Christina had not had any contact with Katelyn
since approximately February 2011. In stipulated testimony, Christina said she had a
visit with Katelyn on October 9, 2012, the day before the hearing, and would like to have
continued contact with her daughter.
The court found by clear and convincing evidence that Katelyn was likely to be
adopted within a reasonable time if parental rights were terminated (adoptability finding).
The court also found that Christina did not maintain regular visitation and contact with
Katelyn, and Katelyn's alleged father did not establish any relationship with her. The
court terminated parental rights and designated the caregivers as Katelyn's prospective
adoptive parents.
DISCUSSION
Christina contends the Agency did not properly assess the importance to Katelyn
of her relationship with her grandfather and the emotional effect the loss of that
relationship would have on her. Citing In re Valerie W. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1
4 (Valerie W.), Christina argues this is a significant piece of missing information and
therefore there is not substantial evidence to support the adoptability finding. She states
that in view of Katelyn's positive relationship with her grandfather, a plan of
guardianship would be in her best interests.
A
Statutory Requirements and Standard of Review
Whenever the court orders a permanency plan selection and implementation
hearing under section 366.26, the court is required to direct the social services agency to
prepare an assessment as part of its report to the court. "The assessment is a 'cornerstone
of the evidentiary structure' upon which the court, the parents and the child are entitled to
rely. [Citations.] The Agency is required to address seven specific subjects in the
assessment report, including the child's medical, developmental, scholastic, mental and
emotional status. [Citation.] In addition, the assessment report must include an analysis
of the likelihood that the child will be adopted if parental rights are terminated.
[Citations.]" (Valerie W., supra, 162 Cal.App.4th at p. 11.)
As relevant here, the social worker is also required to include in the assessment:
"A review of the amount of and nature of any contact between the child and his or her
parents or legal guardians and other members of his or her extended family since the time
of placement. . . . '[E]xtended family' for the purpose of this subparagraph shall include,
but not be limited to, the child's siblings, grandparents, aunts, and uncles." (§ 366.21,
subd.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Filed 5/31/13 In re Katelyn P. CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN 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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re KATELYN P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND D062898 HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. NJ014348) v. CHRISTINA P., Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael
J. Imhoff, Commissioner. Affirmed.
Christina P. appeals an order terminating her parental rights to her daughter,
Katelyn P., under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.1 She contends the
assessment prepared by the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency for
1 Unless otherwise indicated, further references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. the section 366.26 hearing was inadequate and there is not substantial evidence to support
the finding that Katelyn was likely to be adopted within a reasonable time. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Five-year old Katelyn P. is the daughter of Christina P. In August 2010, Katelyn
was adjudicated a dependent of the juvenile court due to her mother's inability to provide
regular care to her.2 Christina suffers from a serious mental health disorder and was
repeatedly institutionalized or incarcerated during Katelyn's dependency proceedings.
According to her evaluating psychologist, it was highly unlikely that Christina would
ever attain adequate psychological functioning to permit her to safely parent a young
child.
In April 2012, at the 12-month review hearing, the court terminated reunification
services, set a section 366.26 hearing and ordered the Agency to prepare an assessment as
required by section 366.21, subdivision (i). The section 366.26 hearing was held on
October 10, 2012. The court received the Agency's section 366.26 report, which included
the assessment, and addendum reports in evidence. The court accepted Christina's
stipulated testimony.
2 On our own motion, we take judicial notice of this court's opinion In re Katelyn P. (Feb. 28, 2011, D058104) [nonpub]. This opinion details the events leading to Katelyn's detention in protective custody in June 2010 to the jurisdictional and dispositional hearings in August 2010. 2 The Agency reported that Katelyn was a healthy, curious and energetic four-year
old without developmental delays or concerns. Katelyn had excellent language skills and
was becoming fluent in English and French. She occasionally had temper tantrums when
redirected.
During the dependency proceedings, Katelyn had four placements. She was
placed in a foster care home from June to December 2010. In December, Katelyn was
placed in the care of her maternal grandfather, William P., for approximately three
weeks. When issues arose concerning Katelyn's care by other family members while her
grandfather was at work, the Agency returned Katelyn to her first foster home. In
November 2011, the Agency placed Katelyn in a concurrent family foster home with
caregivers who were willing to provide a permanent home to her if needed.
Katelyn had lived with her mother in the home of her maternal grandfather until
she was almost two and a half years old, when dependency proceedings were initiated.
When not at work, Katelyn's grandfather was her primary caregiver. He maintained
regular contact with Katelyn throughout her dependency proceedings. They visited twice
a week for four hours. Later, because of financial pressures, the grandfather reduced
their visits to once a week. Currently, he was visiting Katelyn twice a month. Katelyn
enjoyed her visits with her grandfather. He read to her and took her to the library, park
and pool. They went on walks together and attended church. Katelyn's caregivers were
willing to continue to facilitate contact between Katelyn and her grandfather if they
became her adoptive parents.
3 According to the social worker, Katelyn had formed a loving attachment to her
caregivers, who loved her unconditionally. They provided a safe, stable and nurturing
home to Katelyn and were fully committed to making her a permanent part of their
family through adoption. They had an approved adoptive home study. If for some
reason they were unable to adopt her, there were 20 other families in San Diego County
with approved adoptive home studies who were interested in adopting a child like
Katelyn.
The social worker reported that Christina had not had any contact with Katelyn
since approximately February 2011. In stipulated testimony, Christina said she had a
visit with Katelyn on October 9, 2012, the day before the hearing, and would like to have
continued contact with her daughter.
The court found by clear and convincing evidence that Katelyn was likely to be
adopted within a reasonable time if parental rights were terminated (adoptability finding).
The court also found that Christina did not maintain regular visitation and contact with
Katelyn, and Katelyn's alleged father did not establish any relationship with her. The
court terminated parental rights and designated the caregivers as Katelyn's prospective
adoptive parents.
DISCUSSION
Christina contends the Agency did not properly assess the importance to Katelyn
of her relationship with her grandfather and the emotional effect the loss of that
relationship would have on her. Citing In re Valerie W. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1
4 (Valerie W.), Christina argues this is a significant piece of missing information and
therefore there is not substantial evidence to support the adoptability finding. She states
that in view of Katelyn's positive relationship with her grandfather, a plan of
guardianship would be in her best interests.
A
Statutory Requirements and Standard of Review
Whenever the court orders a permanency plan selection and implementation
hearing under section 366.26, the court is required to direct the social services agency to
prepare an assessment as part of its report to the court. "The assessment is a 'cornerstone
of the evidentiary structure' upon which the court, the parents and the child are entitled to
rely. [Citations.] The Agency is required to address seven specific subjects in the
assessment report, including the child's medical, developmental, scholastic, mental and
emotional status. [Citation.] In addition, the assessment report must include an analysis
of the likelihood that the child will be adopted if parental rights are terminated.
[Citations.]" (Valerie W., supra, 162 Cal.App.4th at p. 11.)
As relevant here, the social worker is also required to include in the assessment:
"A review of the amount of and nature of any contact between the child and his or her
parents or legal guardians and other members of his or her extended family since the time
of placement. . . . '[E]xtended family' for the purpose of this subparagraph shall include,
but not be limited to, the child's siblings, grandparents, aunts, and uncles." (§ 366.21,
subd. (i)(1)(B).)
5 "[E]ven if the assessment is incomplete in some respects, the court will look to the
totality of the evidence; deficiencies will go to the weight of the evidence and may
ultimately prove insignificant." (In re John F. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1365, 1378.) On
review, we determined whether the record contains substantial evidence from which the
juvenile court could find by clear and convincing evidence that the child was likely to be
adopted within a reasonable time if parental rights were terminated. We give the court's
adoptability finding the benefit of every reasonable inference and resolve any evidentiary
conflicts in favor if the judgment. (Valerie W., supra, 162 Cal.App.4th at p. 13.)
B
Christina Has Forfeited the Argument the Assessment Was Inadequate
"A party forfeits the right to claim error as grounds for reversal on appeal when he
or she fails to raise the objection in the trial court." (In re Dakota H. (2005) 132
Cal.App.4th 212, 221 (Dakota H.).) The record shows that not only did Christina fail to
object to the adequacy of the assessment, she relied on the assessment in arguing that
Katelyn was not adoptable in part because she was clearly bonded with her grandfather.
Christina did not object to the adequacy of the assessment in the juvenile court and has
forfeited any such objection on appeal. (In re A.A. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1292, 1317.)
Even if forfeiture did not apply, we would not be persuaded by the argument the
assessment lacked an adequate discussion of the amount and nature of any contact
between Katelyn and her grandfather since the time of placement. (§ 366.21, subd.
(i)(1)(B).) This case is not similar to Valerie W., in which this court determined the
assessment failed in most respects to comply with the statutory requirements of section
6 366.21, subdivision (i). (Valerie W., supra, 162 Cal.App.4th at p. 13.) In that case, one
of the children had unresolved neurological and genetic issues that required further
testing to properly assess whether he (and his sister, as a sibling group) were generally
adoptable. In addition, the Valerie W. record contained conflicting and unclear
information about the circumstances of the prospective adoptive parent or parents. (Id. at
pp. 13-14.)
Here, the assessment clearly identifies the prospective adoptive parents and fully
assesses their circumstances. The social worker describes the consistent contact between
Katelyn and her grandfather from the beginning of the case. The visits continued to be
unsupervised and Katelyn enjoyed visiting with her grandfather. The social worker said
that future visitation with Katelyn's parents and extended family members may be
appropriate for Katelyn, if consistent with her best interests. The caregivers were
facilitating the visits between Katelyn and her grandfather and were willing to continue to
do so. Although the assessment of the contact between Katelyn and her grandfather is
minimal, it complies with section 366.21, subdivision (i)(1)(B). Had Christina raised the
issue in juvenile court, she could have cross-examined the social worker and/or presented
additional evidence about the amount and nature of the contact between Katelyn and her
grandfather. (See Dakota H., supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at pp. 221-222 [discussing
forfeiture].)
7 C
There Is Substantial Evidence to Support the Adoptability Finding
A finding of adoptability requires "clear and convincing evidence of the likelihood
that adoption will be realized within a reasonable time." (In re Zeth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4th
396, 406; § 366.26, subd. (c)(1).) The question of adoptability usually focuses on
whether the child's age, physical condition and emotional health make it difficult to find a
person willing to adopt that child. (In re Sarah M. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1642, 1649.)
If the child is considered generally adoptable, there is no need to examine the suitability
of a prospective adoptive home. (In re Scott M. (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 839, 844.)
The record contains substantial evidence from which the juvenile court could find
clear and convincing evidence that the child was likely to be adopted within a reasonable
time. Katelyn's caregivers wanted to adopt her. They said they were "[100 percent]
committed; she is our little girl." They had an approved adoptive home study. The social
worker also identified 20 families in San Diego County that were interested in adopting a
child like Katelyn. Thus, the evidence supports the court's finding that Katelyn was
generally and specifically adoptable.
Further, the factual underpinning of Christina's argument―that Katelyn was not
adoptable because of the emotional turmoil she would suffer from the loss of her
relationship with her grandfather―is not supported by the record. The record shows the
caregivers would continue to facilitate Katelyn's relationship with her grandfather as long
as it was in her best interests. The court did not err when it found that Katelyn was
adoptable and terminated parental rights.
8 DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
IRION, J.
WE CONCUR:
McDONALD, Acting P. J.
AARON, J.