Filed 12/16/20 In re J.B. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 J.B. a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

2d Juv. No. B306805

(Super. Ct. No. 19JV00210)

(Santa Barbara County)

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL 

SERVICES,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

P.B.,

 Defendant and Appellant.

 P.B., the biological mother of J.B., appeals the 

juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights and freeing 

her son, J.B., for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26).1 We 

affirm. 

1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code. 
2

Procedural History

Appellant suffers from bipolar disorder and 

substance abuse (methamphetamine) that resulted in the May 

31, 2019 detention of two-year-old J.B. Appellant was under the 

influence of methamphetamine, shrieking, and suffering extreme 

vacillating emotions. Nine days earlier, appellant was using 

methamphetamine, physically abusing J.B., and threatened to 

jump off a bridge with the infant. There were reports that 

appellant left J.B. alone in a room for hours, strapped to a car 

seat. 

The trial court sustained a petition for failure to 

protect (§ 300, subd. (b)(1)) and abuse of a sibling (§ 300, subd. 

(j)), and bypassed services based on appellant’s failure to reunify 

with a half-sibling (§ 361.5, subds. (b)(10) & (b)(11)). Services 

were provided for the biological father who was homeless but 

terminated at the six month review hearing for failure to follow 

the case plan. 

Appellant requested a contested permanent 

placement hearing (§ 366.26), based on the theory that J.B. was 

not adoptable, and was asked to submit an offer of proof. At the 

366.26 hearing, appellant’s trial attorney said, “I’ve gone over the 

reports and records, as well as delivered service logs. I was 

unable to file an offer of proof.” Appellant submitted on the 

section 366.26 report which recommended adoption. The trial 

court found the evidence was clear and convincing that J.B. was 

likely to be adopted and terminated parental rights. 
3

Adoptability

Appellant contends the evidence does not support the 

finding that J.B. is adoptable. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1).) “The 

adoptability issue at a section 366.26 hearing focuses on the 

dependent child, e.g., whether his or her age, physical condition, 

and emotional state make it difficult to find a person willing to 

adopt. [Citation.]” (In re A.A. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1292, 

1311.) Although a finding of adoptability must be supported by 

clear and convincing evidence, it is low threshold test. (In re 

K.B. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1275, 1292.) “The [trial] court must 

merely determine that it is ‘likely’ that the child will be adopted 

within a reasonable time. [Citations.] . . . It is irrelevant that 

there may be evidence which would support a contrary 

conclusion. [Citation.]” (Ibid.) On review, we determine whether 

the record contains substantial evidence from which the juvenile 

court could find clear and convincing evidence the child was 

likely to be adopted within a reasonable time. (In re Michael 

G. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 580, 589; see Conservatorship of 

O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1011.) 

Although J.B. suffered from delayed speech and 

aggressive behaviors when first detained, he made substantial 

progress after he was placed with the foster family. The section 

366.26 report stated J.B. “is an adorable, charismatic, and loving 

three-year-old child. Developmentally, [J.B.] has a known speech 

delay, oppositional defiance, but has been receiving the 

appropriate services to support him in his developmental and 

emotional regulation. . . . He has been assessed to be adoptable 

based on his age and limited concerned with his development.” 

Appellant argues that the foster parents are not 

committed to adoption, prospective adoptive parents have not yet 
4

been identified. That is not the test. What is required is clear 

and convincing evidence of the likelihood that J.B. will be 

adopted within a reasonable time. (In re Zeth S. (2003) 31 

Cal.4th 396, 406.) “The likelihood of adoptability may be 

satisfied by a showing that a child is generally adoptable, that is, 

independent of whether there is a prospective adoptive family 

‘“‘waiting in the wings.’”’ [Citation.]” (In re A.A., supra, 167 

Cal.App.4th at p. 1313.) 

The cases cited by appellant are inapposite and 

involve older children who required specialized placement 

because of special needs (In re Asia L. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 

498, 510-512), a nine-year-old child who required special care for 

a prosthetic eye and had lived with his mother for six years (In re 

Jerome D. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1205-1207), and a special 

needs group of three siblings that required special placement (In 

re K.B., supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1291-1292). Appellant 

provides a laundry list of J.B. developmental problems but cites 

no authority that these issues are so severe as to make the trial 

court's finding of adoptability unsupported by the evidence. (In 

re Lukas B. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1145, 1154.) J.B.’s Court 

Appointed Special Advocate reported that J.B. is “a happy, 

rambunctious 3-year old” who is “very friendly and will greet you 

with a huge smile while immediately trying to engage you into 

playing with him.” He “is extremely inquisitive about 

everything” and “has made tremendous improvement.” Everyone 

agreed with that assessment: the therapist, J.B.’s doctor, the 

social worker, and the caregivers. In May, an Oregon relative 

expressed interest in adopting J.B., drove down to visit J.B., and 

was still being assessed for the adoptive placement. There is no 

requirement that an approved, prospective adoptive family be in 
5

place before the trial court finds the child is likely to be adopted. 

(In re A.A., supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1313-1314.) 

Appellant suggests that if an adoptive placement is 

not made within a reasonable time, that J.B. could become a legal 

orphan with no parent. That scenario has been mooted by the 

section 366.26, subdivision (i)(3) which provides that if the child

is not adopted after the passage of at least three years from the 

date the trial court terminated parental rights, and the child and 

the social services agency agree that adoption is not likely, the 

child may petition for reinstatement of parental rights. (See Cal. 

Juvenile Dependency Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 2020), § 7.28, p. 644.) 

Disposition

The judgment (order terminating parental rights) is 

affirmed. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

YEGAN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.

PERREN, J.
Arthur A. Garcia, Judge

Superior Court County of Santa Barbara

______________________________

Elizabeth C. Alexander, under appointment by the 

Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Michael C. Ghizzoni, County Counsel, Lisa A. 

Rothstein, Sr. Deputy, for Plaintiff and Respondent.