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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

Court Law.

B314026

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 orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County. Stephen C. Marpet, Judge Pro Tempore of the Juvenile 

Court. Affirmed.

Karen B. Stalter, under appointment by the 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 Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________

Mother appeals from the juvenile court’s orders 

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 

Department of Children and Family Services (the Department)

filed a Welfare and Institutions Code1 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 court two years earlier, in January 2015, based on 

mother’s inability to care for them appropriately due to her

mild intellectual disability, her refusal of services to help her 

care for them, and J.S.C. having sustained burns while mother 

was cooking in September 2014, as well as father’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 Regional Center, 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 cognitive 

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, during 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. The 
4

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 him

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 sentences.

On August 11, 2017, the juvenile court sustained the 

petition, declared the children a sibling group, and detained them

from parents, ordering 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 from 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 Regional 

Center 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, the children were placed in the foster family 

home of 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 Plans

(IEPs) through the school district they had attended while

living with parents, but those were not transferrable to their new 

school district. J.S.C. completed an IEP in the new school district 

(first grade) in November 2017. It reflected he had a speech 

or language impairment and low incidence 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. started 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.

Mrs. V. described J.S.C. as “mischievous.” 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 therapy 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 hyper-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 afternoon 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 responded to the younger children, but not J.S.C.

The Department updated the court on the children’s 

well-being for a July 24, 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. The V.s had noticed a negative change 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 in 

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 services 
7

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 

children, as “they are older and cannot guarantee quality care 

for the children until the age of 18 years old.”

The assessor described J.S.C. as “physically healthy” and 

able to “play[ ] independently”; 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 participating in 

therapy.

K.S.C. also was described as “physically healthy” and able 

to “play[ ] independently,” as well as “enjoy[ing] school.” He too 

had a speech 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,” “play[ed] independently,” “relat[ed] well to 

caregivers,” and “enjoy[ed] school.” She too was in therapy.

The juvenile court terminated family reunification services 

and scheduled a section 366.26 hearing for May 2019.

3. Second foster placement

In its section 366.26 report, filed April 23, 2019, the 

Department noted the children had been living in the G.s’ foster 

home since March 2019. Mrs. V. had asked the children to be 

removed, stating J.S.C.’s behavior was “ ‘worsening.’ ” He was 

spitting at her, destroying property, did not follow the house 
8

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 

behavior 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,” and 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. The foster family social worker 

was helping the caregiver request an IEP for him. J.S.C. 

was attending 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 regulation. J.S.C. was able 

to verbalize what upset him and what made him happy and 

to share his toys and 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 adoptive home.

In a status report filed April 23, 2019, the social worker 

noted the children had warmed up to and were interacting with 

her more. J.S.C. especially had been reticent to talk during the 
9

social worker’s earlier visits. The children were able to play and 

share with the social worker, ask her questions, and express their

needs 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 behavior had improved since 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 the 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 on 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 without 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 with appropriate 

therapeutic services and to continue to make best efforts to 

find an appropriate adoptive home for them as a sibling group.

In its December 2019 update, the Department confirmed 

K.S.C. and N.C had started mental health services (on 

October 20, 2019). Although Mrs. G. was not interested 

in adoption, 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 

reports for the children’s needs and services plans. According 

to the reports, Mrs. G. said J.S.C.’s behavior had “significantly 

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 assessed for a learning 

disability or impairment due to emotional trauma and to have 

a psychoeducational assessment outside of the school setting 

because he still was below grade level.

J.S.C.’s individual goal for the next reporting period was 

to reduce his aggressive behavior with his siblings from three 

times a week to once a week. He already had achieved his earlier

goals of expressing his feelings at least two to three times a week 

(as of May 2018), and completing 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 siblings

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. He 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 often
11

would not want to follow the G.s’ directives. She also argued with

her brothers 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 reduce 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. The court 

therefore continued the section 366.26 hearing to May 11, 2020.

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 children received therapy from the same provider but 

saw different therapists.
12

As of December 2019, J.S.C. had been engaged and 

actively participating 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 more than limited progress.

His therapeutic goals were to decrease his crying spells and to 

increase positive interactions with his siblings.

N.C. started her weekly therapy sessions in August 2019. 

By January 2020, she was actively participating in her sessions 

but had not made substantial progress in decreasing her 

tantrums or in saying unkind things to her brothers.

In February 2020, the Department informed the court

that the children and prospective adoptive parents the N.s had 

had four visits that had gone “very well.” The 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, the 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 support 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, the school 

closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic emergency. The children

began receiving online instruction, and the N.s hired a tutor

for the children. (The later-filed May 2020 needs and services 

quarterly report noted that, with the tutoring, J.S.C seemed 

to engage better in school and to complete his homework, with 

which he had been having difficulty.)

The children continued to have visits with parents, 

now monitored by the N.s. During the COVID-19 pandemic 

emergency, the visits took place through FaceTime.

The Department asked the court to continue the matter 

for six months 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 filed 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 continued, however.
14

and K.S.C. had IEPs for speech services but were not receiving 

them both 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 Acres. She 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 the 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 meet the family’s 
15

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 services. 

The children, in turn, said they liked living with the N.s. 

N.C. called them “ ‘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 new 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. The Department explained that, 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 pandemic 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. 

Normally, 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 in-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 the pandemic. J.S.C. 

and N.C. began receiving ISFC mental health services in August 

2020. In 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 talking back, shutting down, and saying “no,” 

from occurring daily to four days per week, and work toward

eliminating his physical aggression by decreasing 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 physically aggressive 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 goals.
17

expressed 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 visit 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 about 

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 children’s permanent plan. The 

Department noted the children continued to require ISFC 

8 Mother and father had been having separate, monitored 

virtual visits twice a week with the children since the pandemic’s 

onset. Father had resumed in-person visits with the children 

for two hours on Sundays.
18

services. The 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 Department 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 

match and to allow the N.s “to grow into their role as active 

caregivers by learning how to independently manage the 

children” with the techniques 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 had “ ‘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, the 

Department noted that, since the last reporting period, the N.s 

had “taken the initiative” 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 improved. 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 

committed 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 Department 

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] extremely 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.’s 
20

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, refuse 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 on 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 speak 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 as 

becoming defiant 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 the 
21

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 again if the children’s 

negative behavior increased. It 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 its 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 resources.” 

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 added, “ ‘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 best 
22

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 here. 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 and 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 with 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 that 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 

and 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.

DISCUSSION

Mother contends the juvenile court failed to determine if 

the children were likely to be adopted within a reasonable time,

and the evidence is insufficient to support an implied finding

that the children were 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 263, 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 that 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. The court 

generally considers whether the child’s age, physical condition, 

and emotional state make it difficult to find a person willing 

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

1649.) “Usually, the fact that a prospective adoptive 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.4th 
25

1292, 1313.) Rather, all that is required is clear and convincing 

evidence of the likelihood that the child will be adopted within 

a reasonable time. (Ibid.; § 366.26, subd. (c)(1).)

2. Substantial evidence supports the adoptability 

finding

The juvenile court did not make any explicit findings on 

the record at the July 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 “failed 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 Kristin W. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 

234, 253.)

Based on the evidence, the juvenile court reasonably could 

find it highly probable 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 had been living with the 

N.s for 16 months, and the 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

therefore, the children would be adopted into the N.s’ home if 

the case moved forward. The 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 adoptable. 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 Disturbance 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 aggressive 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—ages 11, eight, and six—and healthy. A Department 

social worker observed the 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, the N.s’ willingness to adopt the sibling set despite

the children’s trying behavior demonstrates those behaviors

did not present an insurmountable obstacle to their adoption. 

(See In re I.W. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 1517, 1525–1527

[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 Cal.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 Department 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 be able to decide

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 not 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 their 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 health 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 

normally very active family. Not surprisingly, the added stress 

of the pandemic adversely affected the children’s behavior.

Some of the children’s defiance and outbursts also

reasonably were attributable to their visits with parents. (See 

J.W., supra, 26 Cal.App.5th at p. 267 [noting that, in response 

to parent’s argument child was unadoptable due to behavior 

problems, parent’s contact with child was a contributing factor 

to those problems, and “fost-adopt parents” had been able to 

successfully resolve many of the 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 their weekly calls with parents

and after in-person visits with father. Indeed, the 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 supports an implied finding

to a high degree of probability that the children were specifically 

adoptable by the N.s. Mother contends “there remains a genuine 
29

question whether the N.s can meet the minors’ numerous and 

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, even 

during those difficult times, the N.s. made every effort to help the 

children adjust and to meet their needs. They hired a tutor for 

the children when their school closed, advocated for the children

to receive services, ensured the children participated in their 

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, the Department understandably wanted the N.s to

take the “initiative” to show they independently could meet

the children’s needs and stabilize their behavior. The record

sufficiently supports 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 meeting the children’s 

emotional, educational, and developmental needs. And, although 

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’ transition 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, the 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 

providing different techniques for the N.s to use to deal with 

negative behavior and change. And, the 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 

adopting the sibling set in the past, that 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 unequivocally declared 

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] the chance to permanently 

become [ ] member[s] of the family that loves [them] and that 

[they] love[ ], simply because [they 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 pp. 268–269.)

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s July 1, 2021 orders 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.