Filed 3/10/22 In re J.S.C

. CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

In re J.S.C. et al., Persons Coming Under the J uvenile Court Law. B3 1 4026

Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. DK08500A

, DK08500B

, DK08500C LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from order s of the Superior Cour t of Los Angeles County. Stephen C. Marpet

, Judge Pro Tempore of the Juvenile
Court

. Affirmed

.

Karen B. Stalter , under appointment by t he Court
of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.2 Rodrigo A. Castro

- Silva , County Counsel, Kim Nemoy

, Assistant County Counsel, Jacklyn K. Louie

, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for P laintiff and Respondent

.

_________________________ Mother appeals from the juvenile court’s order s terminating her parental rights to her children J.S.C., K.S.C.,
and N.C. on the sole ground substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court ’s finding that the children were adoptable. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
As the parties’ briefs fully set forth the factual and procedural background leading to the court’s termination
of parents’ parental rights, our summary focuses on the facts
relevant to the juvenile court’s adoptability finding

. 1. Current and past dependency petitions
Mother and father are the parents of J.S.C. (born April 2010), K.S.C. (born September 2012), and N.C. (born December 2014). Father is not a party to this appeal. The current dependency petition arose when the Los Angeles County Depar tment of Children and Family Services (the Department)
filed a Welfare and Institutions Code 1 section 300 petition on May 15, 2017, on behalf of the three children. The juvenile court sustained the petition

— based on mother’s physical abuse of J.S.C. and father’s failure to protect, father’s physical abuse
of J.S.C., and parents’ violent altercations in their children’s

presence

— and removed the children from both parents’ care

.

1 All subsequent statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.3 J.S.C. and K.S.C. had been declared dependents of the juvenile cour t two years earlier

, in January 2015

, based on mother’s inability to care for them appropriately due to her
mild intellectual disabilit y , her refu sal of services to help her

care for them, and J.S.C. having sustained burns while mother was cooking in Septe mber 2014 , as well as f ather’s failure to
protect. The boys , ages four and two at the time, remained in their parents’ care with their sister N.C.

— born after the petition
was filed

— and received family maintenance services. The court also ordered the Department to refer the two boys for speech

assessments

. After assessments by the R egional C enter, N.C. was eligible for Early Start services with in

- home services once a
week

. K.S .C. was found eligible for services based on cogni tive developmental delays

— he was to receive intervention services
three times a week. J.S.C. and K.S.C. also were to receive mental
health services. The juvenile court terminated its jurisdiction in July 2015. In May 2017, d uring the initial investigation of the

current petition

, the Department social worker observed J.S.C.
and K.S.C. , now ages seven and four

, to have speech delays.
N.C. , who was two years old at the time, was mostly pre

- verbal.
J.S.C. told the social worker that mother hit him on his face and
head

, and father hit him on his buttocks

, when he didn’t listen

. K.S.C. said “ ‘hit,’ ” pointing to his face and arms and answered

“ ‘Mommy ’ ” when asked who hit him

. The dependency investigator interviewed the children in
June 2017 about the petition’s allegations

. J.S.C. said mother
had thrown a cell phone at him that hit him in the face , and
she had hit him and K.S.C. on the ear with her hand

. The4

investigator observed “various scars” on J.S.C.’s lower back and
asked J.S.C. how he got them. J.S.C. said his mother had hit him
with a belt. J.S.C. vacillated on whether father had hit hi m with a belt. (Father denied having hit the children with a belt ; he said he spanked them on the buttocks with an open hand.) The investigator noted K. S.C. appeared to have a speech impediment and was unable to speak in complete sen t ences. On August 11 , 2017, t he juvenile court sustained the petition

, declared the children a sibling group , and detained them from parents, orderin g the Department to make best efforts to place the children together

. 2 At the September 2017 disposition hearing, the court declared the children dependents of the juvenile court, removed them fr om parents’ custody , and
ordered monitored visitation for parents

. The court ordered
the Department to provide family reunification services
and to assist in meeting the children’s needs, including with counseling and by following up on speech therapy and R egional
C enter assessments. In December 2017, the court made further orders for the Department to ensure the Regional Center was providing services for the children.
2. First foster placement As of the Department’s February 21, 2018 six

- month

status review report

, t he children were placed in the foster family
home o f the Vs. At the beginning of the placement, Mrs. V. had difficulty enrolling K.S.C. and N.C. in school, so she worked with
them at home.

2 The court had detained the children from mother

, and released them to father, in May 2017.5 J .S.C. and K.S.C. had Individualized Education Plan s (IEP s ) through the school district t he y had attended whil e living with parents , but th ose were not transferrable to their new
school district

. J.S.C. completed an IEP in the new school district (first grade) in November 201 7. It reflected he had a speech

or language impairment and low incidenc e disability. J.S.C. qualified for specialized academic instruction as well as language and speech services. Mrs. V. said J.S.C. struggled in school
due to his difficulties with reading and pronunciation.
K.S.C. st arted school (pre

- K) on December 26, 2017

. N.C.
started a Head Start preschool program on January 18, 2018

, after she was potty trained. Mrs. V. said both children enjoyed and were eager to go to school.
M r s. V. described J.S.C. as “misch i e vous .” He would blame
one of his siblings for something he had done , but later confess

. J.S.C. would sometimes stare into space as if in his own world

. She described K.S.C. as “easy going” and able to understand more and pay attention better than his brother. Mrs. V. said N.C. would easily anger if she didn’t get her way by throwing things
on the floor.
The children were assessed for mental health services
in October 2017. J.S.C. and K.S .C. began weekly ther apy in
November 2017. Their new therapist, who had seen them three
times since January 2018

, said the boys had internalized their trauma, as they did not seem to have many behavioral problems. They appeared to be hyp er

- vigilant at the start of their treatment, were cooperative , and were able to be redirected.
She anticipated the children would meet their treatment goals

soon.6 All three children also had been clients of the Regional
Center when living with parents. The three children were pending evaluations by the Regional Center in the foster home’s

area

. Mrs. V. monitored the children ’s Sunday a fternoon visits with parents. She noticed mother paid attention to K.S.C.
and N.C. but ignored J.S.C., and during mother’s calls with the children, she res ponded to the younger children , but not J.S.C. The Department updated the court on the ch ildren’s
well

- being for a July 2 4 , 2018 progress hearing. They continued
to do well in the V.s’ home

. J.S.C. was in summer school and
had a tutor

. J.S.C. and K.S.C. had both achieved their treatment goals and were discharged from their mental health services

on April 4, 2018.
In its October 10, 2018 status review report for the

12

- month review hearing, the Department described the children

as having made “significant progress” since being placed with
the V.s. T he V.s had noticed a negative c hange in the children’s
behavior , however, when mother visited inconsistently. K.S.C. was most affected by mother’s “sporadic and infrequent visits
and calls .” His tantrums had increased during homework time.
N.C. was imitating her brothers’ behaviors. Mental health services were again requested, and i n September 2018, J.S.C. resumed services with a new provider

. His siblings were in the process of having mental health assessments with the same provider

. In November 2018, the court set a hearing for parents

to contest the Department’s recommendation to terminate
reunification services. The court ordered wraparound services7

for J.S.C. and ordered the Department “ to address the best permanent plan for the children

. ” In January 2019 , the Department provided the court with adoption assessments for the children dated December 28, 2018. The children were determined “likely to be adopted.” The V.s

, however, were not interested in providing permanency for the

c hildren , as “they are older and cannot guarantee quality care
for the children until the age of 18 years old.”
The as sessor described J.S.C. as “physically health y ” and
able to “play [ ] indepen dently” ; having a “short attention span,” noting the caregiver reported he had difficulty understanding
some tasks ; “learning disabled

, ” noting he had an IEP and was receiving school

- based speech services; and p articipating in
ther apy

. K.S.C. also was described as “physically healthy” and able to “play[ ] in dependently,” as well as “enjoy[ing] school .” He too had a s peech delay and an IEP, and was receiving school

- based speech services , as well as therapy.
The assessment for N.C. noted she was “physically healthy,” “appear[ed] developmentally age appropriate,” “personable,” “pla y[ed] independently

, ” “relat [ed] well to caregivers ,” and “enjoy[ed] school.” She too was in therapy.
T he juvenile court terminated family reunification services and scheduled a section 366.26 hearing for May 2019.
3. Secon d foster placement
In its section 366.26 report , filed April 2 3 , 2019
, the Department noted the children had been living in the G.s’ foster
home since March 2019. Mrs. V. had asked t he children to be

re moved , stating J.S.C. ’s behavior was “ ‘worsening .’ ” He was spitting at her , des troying property

, did not follow the house8

rules , and did not listen

. Mrs. V. was a good friend of Mrs. G.
and continued to have contact with the children.
The social worker had not observed any concerning
behavi or during this reporting period

. The children appeared

to be “stable and adjusting” to their new home . Mrs. G. stated the children behaved “like ‘any kid’ their age ,” an d she had

no concerns

. None of the children were clients of the Regional
Center. The report noted J.S.C. , who was in the second grade

, had received “ 1 ” s

— meaning little to no mastery

— in all subjects on his latest report card

. T he foster family social worker

was helpi ng the careg iver request an IEP for him. J.S.C.

was att ending therapy, but sometimes did not want to talk during his sessions. The therapist was working with him on building their rapport , discussing his trauma, and learning healthy coping skills and emotional regul ation. J.S.C. was able to verbalize what upset him and what made him happy and

to share his toys an d play with his brother and foster sibling.
K.S.C. and N.C. were developing on target and did not have
IEPs

. A report from K.S.C.’s school stated he “pays attention, demonstrates independence, completes his assignments [,] and
is able to use his fine motor skills.” At school, N.C. could follow directions and had learned her alphabet and shapes. Both
children missed and wanted to return to Mrs. V. The Department believed the best permanent plan for
the children was adoption. It was continuing its efforts to locate an appropriate ad optive home. In a status report filed April 2 3 , 2019, the social worker
noted the children had warmed up to and were interact ing with
her more

. J.S.C. especially had been reticent to talk during the9

social worker’s earlier visits. The children were able to play and share with the social worker, ask her questions, and express their
need s to both the social worker and caregiver. J.S.C.’s therapist reported J.S.C. had “ ‘opened’ up” and was engaged in therapy

. His beh avior had improved s ince living with the G.s

. The section 366.26 and permanency planning review hearings were continued. On September 4, 2019 , the court
deemed the three children were a sibling group

. It ordered the Department to ensure the boys were in speech therapy and to
continue to make best efforts to find t he children an appropriate adoptive placement. In the Department’s next report, it noted the children were having behavioral issues after having stayed with Mrs. V. while
the G.s went o n a summer vacation

. Mrs. G

. asked for mental
health services. J.S.C. continued to see his therapist. Mrs. G.,

as had Mrs. V., informed the Department that mother visited the children inconsistently , sometimes going months wi thout contact.
Mother’s missed visits and calls saddened the children

. At the October 3, 2019 review hearing , the court ordered the Department to connect the children wi th appropriate therapeutic services and to continue to make best e fforts to
fin d an appropriate adoptive home for them as a sibling group. In its December 2019 update, the D epartment confirmed
K.S.C. and N. C had s tarted mental health services ( on October 20, 2019 )

. Although Mrs. G. was not interested
in adopti on , the children remained placed with the G.s until
the Department could find an appropriate adoptive family

. The G.s wanted to continue working with the children until

an adoptive home became available. Adoption remained
the children’s permanent plan.10 The Department attached the August 2019 quarterly report s for the ch ildren’s needs and services plans. According

to the reports, Mrs. G. said J.S.C.’s behavior had “signific antly improved.” He was behaving better toward his siblings and
able to find other outlets to release his frustrations. The report also noted J.S.C. had completed second grade successfully and attended summer school

. Although J.S.C. had improved, the report recommended he be asses sed for a learning disability or impairment due to emotional tra uma and to hav e

a psychoeducational assessment outside of the school setting
because he still was below gra de level.
J.S.C. ’s individual goal for the next reporting period w as
to reduce his aggressive behavior with his siblings from three
times a week to once a week

. He already had achieved his earl ier goals of expressing his feelings at least two to three times a week (as of May 2018) , and compl etin g his homework assignments
five times a week, instead of twice a week (as of May 2019). K.S.C. was reported as doing well in the G.s’ home

. K.S.C. continued to have minor arguments with his sibling s and had a hard time sharing his toys. He sometimes, though
less frequently, argued with Mrs. G.’s six

- year

- old daughter
and called her names when he was upset. H e was able to be
redirected and calm himself , however

. Mrs. G. described him

as “a very caring and forgiving boy.” K.S.C. was attending elementary school and attended a

summer program

. He was able to write his name, identify letters and shapes, count to 100 by ones, twos, fives, and tens

, and knew his kindergarten sight words. He no longer had tantrums.
N.C. , on the other hand, was having a difficult time adjusting to the G.s’ home and rules. She was defiant and often11

would not want to follow the G.s’ directives

. She also argue d with
her bro thers and the G.s’ six

- year

- old daughter and had trouble sharing. Before moving to the G.s’ home, however, N.C. had achieved her goal of decreasing her outbursts from five times

a week to two times a week

. N.C. was attention

- seeking , as well. Recently, she had begun to urinate on herself, the bathroom floor,
or the toilet seat

, upsetting the other children

. The report stated
N.C. ’s goal for the next reporting period was to reduc e this
attention

- seeking behavior from three times a day to once a day.
N.C. also had a difficult time getting along with her
classmates at school

. Her teacher said she had a hard time transitioning from one task to another one and often had to be separated from the rest of the class. N.C. was developmentally on target , however. She was learning to use scissors, could write her name, and could name colors and shapes. In its January 13, 2020 last minute information for
the court report, the Department advised the court the children
had been matched with a potential adoptive family. T he court
therefore continued t he section 366.26 hearing to May 11, 202 0

. In the meantime, the Department filed a status review report on January 23, 2020, to update the court

. The children
remained in the G .s’ care

. Mrs. G. was taking all three children to weekly counseling sessions

. 3 The Department attached their therapists ’ progress letters.

3 The c hildren received therapy from the same provider but saw different therapists.12 As of December 2019, J.S.C. had been engaged and actively partic ipating in his weekly sessions. 4 He was working

on “decreasing physical aggression and increasing his verbal
communication.” According to the therapist, J.S.C. “has shown
tremendous growth and progress throughout treatment as his behavior at home and school has reportedly improved.” According to his therapist’s January 2020 letter, K.S.C.

, who did not begin weekly therapy until October 2019 , had not yet had the opportunity to make mo re than limited progress.
His therapeutic goals were to decrease his crying spells and to increase positive interactions with his sibling s. N.C. starte d her weekly thera p y session s in August 2019. By January 2020 , she was actively participating in her session s but ha d not made substantial progress in decreasing her

tantrums or in saying un kind things to her brothers. In February 2020, t he Department informed the court
that the children and prospective adoptive parent s the N .s had
had four visits that had gone “very well. ” T he family was looking forward to extended and overnight visits.
4. Placement with prospective adoptive parents On February 27 , 2020, the children were placed with
the N .s. According to the Department’s section 366.26 report,
filed April 20, 2020, t he children were struggling with adjusting to the structure, rules, and expectations in their new home with
the N.s: J.S.C. lacked motivation to follow school rules; K.S.C. spoke in a high tone to others; and N.C. was defiant when being
redirected. The children also were not getting along with and

4 J.S.C. began weekly therapy through this provider in August 2018.13

acted aggressively toward each other. The Department referred the children for mental health services through the adoption promotion s upport services (APSS) program. 5
The N.s had enrolled the children in a private school when
the children moved into their home. On March 2, 2020, J.S.C. started third grade, K.S.C. started second grade, and N.C. started kindergarten, at the new school. Two weeks later, th e school
closed due to the COVID

- 19 pandemic emergency. The children began receiving online instruction, and t he N.s hired a tutor
for the children. (The later

- filed May 2020 needs and services quarterly report noted that, w ith the tutoring, J.S.C seemed

to engage better in school and to complete his homework, with
which he had been having difficulty. )
The childr en continued to have visits with parents,

now monitored by the N.s. D uring the C OVID

- 19 pandemic

emergency , the visits took place through FaceTime

. The Department asked the court to continue the matter
for six month s to allow the children and the family time to adjust and to reduce parents’ visitation. Adoption remained
the children’s permanent plan. The matter was continued

to August 2020 due to the COVID

- 19 state of emergency. On July 20, 2020, the Department file d a status review report describing the efforts it had made

, since May 2020

, to address the children’s needs. The Department noted J.S.C.

5 Due to their move to the N.s’ home, J.S.C. and N.C. had been discharged from their therapy provider on February 28, 2020. The therapist noted J.S.C. had made “tremendous progress” on his goal of increasing healthy communication and had met his goal of decreasing physical aggression “months ago.” N.C.’s behaviors c ontinued, however.14

and K.S.C. had IEPs for speech services but were not receiving
them bot h due to their enrollment in a private, rather than public

, school, and the school’s closure due to the pandemic.
Plans were made to contact the school district to address the boys’ needs under their IEPs. On April 7, 2020, N.C. started mental health services through the foster family agency, Five Ac res

. S he saw a therapist and received weekly home services. J.S.C. started seeing the same therapist on May 5, 2020. K.S.C. was doing
well in school and did not exhibit behavioral issues necessitating
mental health services

. He was referred to therapy nonetheless. The May 27, 2020 needs and services plan quarterly update noted N.C. was hitting her brothers. The N.s had reported the siblings fought with each other almost daily. To improve their behavior, the children were to work on limiting th e number
of times they reacted to their siblings’ behavior from five times

to two times per week. On June 26, 2020, the children’s therapist spoke to the social worker and explained she was providing parent child interactive therapy (PCIT) for N.C. and the N.s because the N.s were “struggling to ‘understand’ ” the children’s trauma and to

“ ‘manage’ ” their behaviors. The N.s had asked for a psychiatric evaluation but there were no new referrals due to the pandemic. At a July 2020 team meeting, the Department, the Five Acres service providers, and the N.s discussed J.S.C.’s and N.C. ’s
need for intensive services to address their behaviors. The
children ’s current therapist was unable to mee t the family’s15

needs due to her high caseload. J.S.C. and N.C. would be
transitioned from APSS mental health services to ISFC services. 6
The N.s were “overwhelmed,” but said they were committed to following through with the adoption. They were willing to work with the children using the ISFC program and service s. The children, in turn, said they liked living with the N.s

. N.C. called the m “ ‘mom’ and ‘dad.’ ” The Department again asked for a continuance “to allow the caregivers Mr. and Mrs. N[.] time to understand and manage
the children’s behavior with the ne w ISFC program and services.” The Department also asked the court to decrease parents’
visitation time. On November 6, 2020, the Department simultaneously provided the court its section 366.26 report and a status review report. T he Department explained t hat, before the children moved into the N.s’ home in late February 2020, the children
and the N.s had experienced a successful placement process, including two overnight visits. Unfortunately, soon after the children transitioned to the N.s’ home, the pan demic forced
the family to stay home and school to move to remote learning. The stay

- at

- home order was difficult for this very active family.
N ormally , the N.s would plan many outings to release pent

- up
energy. The pressure of the pandemic during the time when
the children were adjusting to their new home had affected
their behavior. The Department noted that, at one point, the N.s gave a 14

- day notice to have the children removed. During a teleconference, the N.s revealed they had had a “rough week

6 ISFC stands for “ Intensive Services Foster Care.”16

with the children’s behavior.” They had since changed their mind and wanted to continue caring for the children. The children had begun in

- person day care, which had improved their behavior, and had begun to receive i n

- person services. The ISFC team described the family as having been in “ ‘crisis mode’ due to
the children’s ‘defiant’ behaviors for the past 8 months.” The Department detailed the delays the children had had in accessing mental health services due to th e pandemic. J.S.C.
and N.C. began receiving ISFC mental health services in August
2020. I n late August 2020

, J.S.C. was diagnosed with ADHD
and prescribed psychotropic medication (Adderall)

. N.C. also was diagnosed with ADHD and prescribed psychotropic medication (Tenex). J.S.C.’s and N.C.’s therapist submitted progress letters
for the Department on October 7, 2020

. J.S.C’s treatment goals

were to reduce his defiant behavior

— described as “secondary to
trauma”

— such as ta l king back, shutting down, and saying “no,” from occurring daily to four days per week

, and work to ward
eliminat ing his physical aggression by decr easing those acts to three days per week from five days per week

. N.C. similarly was
to reduce her daily defiant behavior to five days per week

, and
her physical ly aggressi ve acts to five times per day instead of
10 times per day. 7 Both children were actively engaged in therapy and had increased their ability to express their feelings. J.S.C. had not been meeting his goals, however. He had regressed recently and struggled to follow directions to address his behavior. He also

7 J.S.C.’s and N.C.’s September 30, 2020 quarterly needs and services reports detailed similar goa l s

.17

expre ssed homicidal ideation, for the first time since beginning treatment, stating, “ ‘I can just kill you all.’ ” The therapist noted J.S.C. currently was “unable to manage upsetting thoughts and feelings.” N.C. also had been aggressive

, defiant , and unable

to manage her feelings when upset

. Both the N.s and the ISFC team had noticed a correlation between the regression in the
children’s behavior and an increase in parents’ calls. During team meetings in September and October 2020,
the N.s said they wanted to care for the children permanently and had noticed an improvement in J.S.C.’s and N.C.’s behavior
since they began their psychotropic medication. The N.s noted

, however, that the children were “ ‘defiant’ ” after returning from their weekly in

- person v isit with father. 8 They also would kick
and hit the N.s and each other. By November 2020, when the report was filed, the N.s, who described themselves as “ ‘not generous graders,’ ” said they were 100 percent committed to adopting K.S.C. and N.C. and abo ut
70 percent committed as to J.S.C. The N.s were committed to working toward adoption, however. As for the children, J.S.C. said he was “fine with adoption,”
but wanted to continue to see father. K.S.C. wanted to be adopted and was happy with the N.s. N.C., at only five years old, could not make a meaningful statement. Adoption remained the childre n’s permanent plan. T he Department noted the children continued to require ISFC

8 Mother and father had been having separate, monitored virtual visits twice a w eek with the children since the pandemic’s
onset. Father had resume d in

- person visits with the children for two hours on Sundays.18

services . T he family , however, would qualify for only the less
intensive APSS services after the adoption was finalized

. As
the children needed more time to adjust to living with the N.s,
and the N.s were not yet 100 percent committed to adopting
the sibling set, the Departm ent asked the court to continue
the December 1, 2020 section 366.26 hearing

. The Department
wanted more time to ensure the family remained an adoptive

ma tch and to allow the N.s “to grow into their role as active caregivers by learning how to independently manage the
children” with the tec hniques they had learned. The court continued the section 366.26 hearing for six months

, but
declined to change parents’ visitation. In January 2021, father filed a section 388 petition asking
the court to reinstate his reunification services. 9 In its March 3, 2021 response to father’s petition, the Department reported the children had expressed increased anxiety after learning about father’s petition from the N.s. The social worker interviewed
the children on February 24, 2021. J.S.C. was scared to return

to father. He said he wanted to be adopted because he would
be able to go on to a higher grade with the N. s, and they took
the children places and bought them things. K.S.C. also was concerned about his education. He felt a “ ‘tiny [bit] excited and

a little bit scared ’ ” about the prospect of returning to father.
He liked living with the N.s because they h ad “ ‘a nice house’ ” and bought the children “ ‘nice things.’ ” When asked about his wishes, K.S.C. responded, “ ‘I don’t know what I want, I want what the judge says.’ ” N.C. said she enjoyed her visits with

9 The court set a hearing on father’s petition but ultimately denied the petition.19

father, “ ‘a lot, because they were able to play at the park.’ ”
She wanted to live with the N.s, but also wanted to see father.
In another section 366.26 report , filed April 13, 2021, t he Department noted that, since the last reporting period, the N.s had “taken the init i ative” and were “meeting the children’s needs independently.” The children continued to receive therapeutic and adoption promotion support services from Five Acres.
The N.s stated the children’s behavior “remain[ed] challenging

at times,” but had improve d. The N.s credited the positive improvement to the intensive therapeutic services the children were receiving. On April 2, 2021, the N.s told the social worker they were “looking forward to adopting the children and making them a permanent part of their family.” The Department noted the N.s’ seven

- year

- old biological

son , who had special needs, had a close relationship with the
three children. The children referred to the N.s as “ ‘mom
and dad’ ” and were affectionate toward them. The N.s were
committ ed to adopting the children and providing them with

a loving, happy, and stable home. The children , in turn, told
the social worker they wished for the N.s to adopt them and

were happy living with the N.s. In its May 14, 2021 status review report, the De partment noted the children had adjusted well over the past six months and shared a positive relationship with the N.s. According to the
social worker who had visited the family , the children “appeared to be developing age appropriately . . . [were] extre mely active, content, healthy, full of energy, very charismatic, easy going, friendly, talkative , [and] able to express their needs and wants.”
On January 22, 2021

, the therapist again submitted

progress letters for J.S.C. and N.C. The therapist noted J.S.C.’s20

progress had been inconsistent since being placed with the N.s due to “multiple stressors,” including having to participate in distance learning. The therapist also noted an increase in calls with parents in August 2020

— from once a week to three days

per week

— had contributed to a disruption in J.S.C.’s routine
and structure leading to an increase in J.S.C.’s defiance, physical aggression, and poor self

- regulation. After each call and weekend visit, J.S.C. would become defiant, re fuse to listen, refuse to engage in visits and calls, and become disruptive at daycare.
N. C similarly experienced an increase in her defiance toward
the N.s and others and physical aggression toward her brothers

. When father’s in

- person visits were put o n hold in December 2020 due to rising COVID

- 19 infection rates, J.S.C. was better
able to self

- regulate, leading to more positive behavior. N.C.’s behavior also improved. In January 2021, J.S.C. and K.S.C. were found eligible to
receive IEP services. N. C. was doing well academically and not eligible for those services. The children had resumed in

- person classes and said they enjoyed going to school. When issues arose concerning J.S.C.’s and N.C. ’s behavior at daycare and school,
the N.s were able to sp eak to the children and address the problem successfully

. The Department mentioned the N.s had changed their parenting style to one that was more structured and with more
follow

- through on directives. And, with the help of the ISFC
team, the N.s now were able to redirect the children when they showed difficulty adjusting to schedule changes, such a s becoming defian t and unable to transition back to the family’s
schedule after visiting father. During monthly team meetings, the N.s and providers noticed the improvement in all the21

children’s behavior and had no significant behavioral concerns

to report. The N.s continued to express their interest and willingness to adopt the children. The Department expressed its concern that, because
the family was dependent on the ISFC team for guidance and support, it would be difficult for the N.s to ensure the children’s
mental health needs without that support. The Department did not want the N.s to become discouraged ag ain if the children’s negative behavior increased. I t wanted the family to show “their full commitment” to the children by ensuring they would be able to provide for their needs with little to no support from support
staff. The Department had discussed i ts concerns with the team, however, and they were “currently be[ing] addressed.” The Department continued “to support and work with the children’s team to alleviate some of the famil[y’s] concerns and find confidence in their knowledge and community resou rces.”
The Department stated the N.s “continue[d] to be proactive
and vocal of ensuring the children[’s] needs [were] being met.” Father filed a second section 388 petition, but the court denied it without a hearing. The court continued the June 1, 2021 section 366.26 hearing for a contested hearing at father’s
request. The court also appointed Ms. N. the holder of the children’s educational rights, over father’s objection. DCFS submitted an interim review report on June 25,
2021
, stating the children had expressed their desire to have
the N.s adopt them. J.S.C. told the social worker he felt happy

to be adopted. He said, “ ‘they are good people, and I really like
them [,] and we are going to be a family.’ ” He adde d, “ ‘I love
it here, this is my home, and I want to be adopted.’ ” K.S.C. described the N.s as “ ‘one of the best parents. This is the best22

house I have ever had. Because they treat you good, they stand up for you, they respect me, they give me stuff, they give so much love, and they care about me, I like it here, I am going to do
well her e . This house is my life and yes of course I want them to adopt me.’ ” N.C. said she wanted “ ‘to get adopted today.’ ” She
asked the social worker to call mother a nd father “ ‘step mom and step dad,’ ” explaining the N.s were her “ ‘mommy and daddy.’ ” The N.s told the social worker, “ ‘We are fully committed and willing to provide these children a permanent, safe home under adoption.’ ” The Department recommended the court terminate parental rights. At the July 1, 2021 contested hearing, the court received into evidence the Department’s various reports and attachments filed over the past two years and heard argument from counsel. The children’s counsel joined wi th the Department in asking
the court to terminate parental rights and free the children
for adoption by the N.s. Counsel noted the children had been “incredibly clear about their wishes to be adopted by” the N.s, with whom they had been living for “well over a year.” Both parents objected.
Father’s counsel argued adoption was not the appropriate plan at th at time, noting the N.s had “waver[ed],” and the Department’s report indicated the children still wanted to see
father. Counsel asked the court to consider legal guardianship instead of adoption. Noting it had read and considered the Department’s reports

an d listened to argument, the court stated, “These children

want to be adopted

. ” It terminated parents’ parental rights and designated the N.s as the children’s prospective adoptive parents. The minute orders of the hearing relating to each child reflect:23

“The Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the child is adoptable.” Mother appealed.
D ISCUSSION
Mother contends the juvenile court failed to d etermine if the children were likely to be adopted within a reasonable time

, and the evidence is ins ufficient to support an implied finding
that the children we re adoptable. She asks us to reinstate her parental rights and remand the matter to the juvenile court

to determine whether the children are adoptable by clear and convincing evidence.

1. Standard of review and applicable law Before the juvenile court may terminate parental rights, it must determine “by clear and convincing evidence that it is likely the child will be adopted within a reasonable time.” ( In re J.W. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 2 63, 266 ( J.W. ) ; § 366.26, subd. (c)(1) .) “The ‘likely to be adopted’ standard is a low threshold.” ( J

. W.

, at p. 267.)
We review the juvenile court’s finding of adoptability
for substantial evidence. ( In re Mary C. (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th
793 , 803 ( Mary C. ) .) Because t hat finding had to be established by clear and convincing evidence, we review the record as a whole

to determine if it “ contains substantial evidence from which a
reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that
the fact was true. ” ( Conservatorship of O.B . (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989,
1011

– 1012

. ) In doing so, we must view the record in the light
most favorable to the Department, as the prevailing party

, “ and give appropriate deference to how the juvenile court may have evaluated the credibility of witnesses, resolved conflicts in the evidence, and drawn reasonable inferences from the evidence.” ( Ibid. )24 The issue of adoptability focuses on the child . T he court generally considers whether the child’s age, physical condition,
and emotional state make it difficult to find a person willing

to adopt th at child. ( In re Sarah M. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1642

, 1649. ) “ Usually, the fact that a prospective adoptiv e parent has expressed interest in adopting the minor is evidence that the
minor ’ s age, physical condition, mental state, and other matters relating to the child are not likely to dissuade individuals from adopting the minor. In other words, a prospective adoptive parent ’ s willingness to adopt generally indicates the minor
is likely to be adopted within a reasonable time either by the prospective adoptive parent or by some other family

. ” ( Id. at

pp. 1649

– 1650 , italics omitted .) Thus, when a child is “generally adoptable

, ” the juvenile court need not inquire into the suitability
of the prospective adoptive parents. ( In re Carl R. (2005) 128 Cal.App. 4th 1051, 1061; see also In re Scott M. (1993) 13 Cal.App. 4th 839, 844 [ section 366.26 hearing does not provide
forum for parents to contest the “ ‘ suitability ’ ” of prospective adoptive family ].) On the other hand, “[w]hen a child is deemed adoptable only because a particular caretaker is willing to adopt, the analysis shifts from evaluating the characteristics of the child

to whether there is any legal impediment to the prospective adoptive parent ’ s adoption and whether [ the parent] is able

to meet the needs of the child. ” ( In re Helen W. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 71, 80 .) The law, however, does not require a juvenile court to
find a dependent child “ ‘ generally ’ or ‘ specifically ’ adoptable” before terminating parental rights. ( Mary C., supra

, 48 Cal.App.5th at p. 802; see also In re A.A. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th25

1292, 131 3

. ) Rather, a ll that is required is clear and convincing
evidence of the likelihood that th e child will be adopted within

a reasonable time. ( Ibid. ; § 366.26, subd. (c)(1). )
2. Substantial evidence supports th e adoptability findin g T he juvenile court did not make any explicit findings on
the record at the Ju ly 1, 2021 section 366.26 hearing concerning the children’s adoptability, other than to state they wanted to
be adopted and to find the N.s were the prospective adoptive parents. The minute orders from the hearing, however, reflect the court found “by clear and convincing evidence” that each child was adoptable. Accordingly, we reject mother’s contention that the juvenile court “fai led to make the statutorily

- required finding
that the [ children ] are adoptable. ” In any event, as mother notes, a finding of adoptability may be implied if supported by substantial evidence. ( In re Krist i n W. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 234, 253 .)
Based on th e evidence, the juvenile court reasonably could find it highly probabl e that the children were likely to be adopted
within a reasonable time. “ ‘ “ [I] t is only common sense that when there is a prospective adoptive home in which the child
is already living, and the only indications are that, if matters continue, the child will be adopted into that home, adoptability
is established. ” ’ ” ( J.W. , supra , 26 Cal.App.5th at p. 268 .) Here, by the time of the hearing, the children ha d been living wi th the
N.s for 16 months , and t he N.s had expressed their commitment “to adopting the children and providing them with a loving, happy, and stable home

. ” Moreover, the case was “adoption ready

, ” and the Department had found there were no impediments to the N.s adopting the children. By all indications,26

the refore, the children would be adopted into the N.s ’ home if
the case moved forward. T he Department also had assessed
the children as likely to be adopted back in December 2018.
Mother contends J. S.C.’s and N.C.’s “numerous mental
health and behavioral issues” preclude an implied finding that the sibling group was generally adoptab le

. Mother notes J.S.C. had been diagnosed with both Moderate Oppositional Defiant
Disorder and ADHD

, K.S.C. had been diagnosed with Adjustment
Disorder with Mixed Distu r bance of Emotions and Conduct

, and N.C. had been diagnosed with Oppositional Defiant Disorder and
ADHD ; J.S.C. and K.S.C. had IEPs; J.S.C. ’s and N.C.’s behaviors required intensive services

— J.S. C. was physically aggressive,
defiant , and emotionally closed off almost daily , and N.C. was verbally and physically ag g ressive and defiant numerous times

a day ; and both J.S.C. and N.C. were prescribed psychotropic
medications

. She also describes the N.s’ own struggles with the
children’s behavior , reflected in the record, their initial reticence about adopting J.S.C., and their dependence on ISFC’s intensive
services to manage the children’s behavior. Undoubtedly, the children

— particularly J.S.C. and N.C.

— had mental health and behavioral challenges. Yet, as our colleagues in Division Six noted, “[v] ery few children in the dependency system are without problems. ” ( J.W. , supra , 26 Cal.App. 5th at p. 268.) The children here were relatively

young

— age s 11, eight, and six

— and healthy. A Department
social worker observed t he children to be “full of energy, very charismatic, easy going, friendly , [and] talkative.” And the N.s described J.S.C. as “smart and caring,” K.S.C. as “sweet, helpful,
and smart ,” and N.C. as “sweet and communicative.”27 Notably, t he N.s ’ willingness to adopt the sibling set despite
the chil dren’s trying behavior demonstrate s those behaviors
did not present an insurmountable obstacle to their adoption. (See In re I.W. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 1517 , 152 5

– 1527 [upholding finding that child was adoptable despite child having ADHD, posttraumatic stress disorder, and a learning disorder

, and having run away and threatened to commit suicide where child’s foster parent had expressed interest in adopting and

no impediment to adoption appeared to exist ], disapproved on another ground in Conservatorship of O.B., supra

, 9 C al.5th at

p. 1010, fn. 7 .) That Mrs. G

., who wasn’t interested in adoption

, wanted to continue to work with the children

— despite their
behavior issues

— until an adoptive family could be found

, also
is a testament to their adoptability. 10 Moreover, when the Department asked to continue the section 366.26 hearing to allow the Depar t ment additional time to assess whether the N.s indeed were an adoptive match for the
children , the Department did not suggest the children otherwise
would not be adoptable. Rather, the Department noted that

, by
the end of the six

- month continuance , it would b e able to d ecide whether to proceed with adoption with the N.s “ or locate another
home .” (Italics added.) Simply put, “[d]isability is not a bar to adoptability.” ( J.W., supra , 26 Cal.App.5th at p. 265 [upholding finding child who suffered from “attention deficit disorder,

10 Although Mrs. V. asked the Department to move the children due to J.S.C.’s behavior “ ‘worsening,’ ” the social worker had no t observed any concerning behavior, and Mrs. G. found the children’s behavior like that of “ ‘any kid’ their age.” The V.s also never intended to adopt due to their own age.28

anxiety, [and] ‘Reactive Attachment Disorder’ ” was likely

to be adopted ].) Importantly

, the juvenile court could infer some of the
children’s behaviors were exacerbated by the ir move to the
N. home shortly before the pandemic caused schools to close and
the state to issue its stay

- at

- home order

. There was a delay in providing mental h ealth services to J.S.C. and N.C., and J.S.C.
and K.S.C. were unable to receive speech services under their
IEPs

. The children , who were struggling to adjust to their

new home

, also had to contend with remote learning. And,
the stay

- at

- home order had been particularly difficult for this

norma lly very active family

. Not surprisingly, t he added stress of the pandemic adversely affected the children’s behavior.
S ome of the children’s defiance and outbursts also reasonably were attributable to their visits with parents. (See J.W., supra

, 2 6 Cal.App. 5th at p. 267 [noting that , in response

to parent’s argument child was unadoptable due to behavior prob lems, parent’s contact with child was a contributing factor

to those probl ems , and “fost

- adopt parents” had been able to successfully resolve many of th e child’s behavioral issues ] .) The
ISFC team and the N.s both noticed J.S.C.’s and N.C.’s behavior regressed with the increase in the ir weekly calls with parents
and after in

- pe rson visits with father

. Indeed, t he children’s
behavior was noted to have improved during a period when
father’s in

- person visits with them were put on hold due to

a surge in COVID

- 19 infections. That trigger would be gone

once the children were adopted. In any event, the record also support s an implied finding

to a high degree of probability that the children were spe c ifically adoptable by the N.s. M other contends “there remains a genuine29

question whether the N.s can meet the minors’ numerous an d overwhelming behavioral problems without the intense services that ISFC was providing during the period prior to termination
of parental rights.” We disagree. As we discussed, the juvenile court reasonably could infer
the N.s’ initial difficulty in managing the children’s behavior was affected by the unique circumstances of the pandemic. Yet, e ven during those difficult times, the N.s. made every effort to help the children adjust and to meet the ir needs. They hired a tutor for
the children when their school closed, advocated for the children to receive services, ensured the children participated in the ir therapeutic sessions and other services

, and , once able, took
the children on family trips and outings. Significantly, the N.s actively engaged with the ISFC team and participated in PCIT

so as to understand the impact the children’s trauma had on their development and behavior and thus learn how to respond effectively to the children’s triggers.
Given the N.s no longer would have the ISFC team’s support, t he Department understandably wante d the N.s to
take the “ initiative ” to show they independently could meet the children’s needs and stabilize their behavior

. The record sufficiently su pports the conclusion that the N.s did just that. By April 2021, the Department noted the N.s in fact had taken
the initiative and independently were meet ing the children’s emotional, educational, and developmental needs. And, a lthough J.S.C.’s and N.C.’s behavior remained challenging at times, the N.s noted the children’s behavior had improved through their participation in intensive therapeutic services and receipt of prescribed medication

. Indeed, as of May 2021, the N.s had reported no significant behavioral concerns.30 As mother asserts
, in its report filed before the originally scheduled June 1, 2021 section 366.26 hearing, the Department expressed concern about the N.s ’ tr ansi tion to providing for the
children’s mental health needs without intensive support and how they would manage a potential increase in the children’s difficult behaviors after that change

. But, the Department
also noted those concerns had been discussed and were being
addressed. Moreover, t he juvenile court reasonably could find the N.s
had alleviated those concerns. The Department noted the N.s ’ support team was helping them with the transition, including

pr oviding differen t techniques for the N.s to use to deal with negative behavior and change. And, t he N.s were noted to have
in fact learned to address and redirect the children’s negative
behavior . They even had changed their parenting style

, with the
children’s behavior improving as a result. Indeed, in the same report noting its concern

, the Department described the N.s as “proactive and vocal of ensuring the children [’ s] needs [were] being met.” And, although the N.s had not been 100% committed to adopt ing the sibling set in the past, th at was before they had
had the additional time to work with the ISFC team

. Even then,
the N.s were committed to working toward adoption. Before
the final July 1, 2021 hearing, the N.s un equivocally declare d their commitment to adopt the three children and make them

a permanent part of their family. Perhaps most importantly,
the children felt supported , cared for , and loved by the N.s

. They looked to the N.s as their parents and family and wanted the N.s to adopt them.31 “ To deny [ the children here ] t he chance to permanently
become [ ] member [s] of the family that loves [them] and that [they] love [ ] , simply because [t he y have] special needs, would derail the entire concept of permanent planning. The evidence shows that the placement is working and that [the children are] adoptable. ” ( J.W., supra , 26 Cal.App. 5th at p p. 268

– 269.)
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s July 1, 2021 order s terminating
mother’s and father’s parental rights to J.S. C., K.S.C., and N.C.

are affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

EGERTON , J.

We concur:

LAVIN

, Acting P. J.

LIPNER , J. *

* Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution

.