Opinion ID: 1449871
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Selection and Implementation Hearing

Text: The court proceeded to the section 366.26 selection and implementation hearing. [8] After considering testimony from the parents and social workers (and a social worker's report and separate adoption assessment report), the court found, pursuant to section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1), that it was likely the minor will be adopted, and that its previous finding pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b) (that reunification services should not be offered to the parents) constituted a sufficient basis for termination of parental rights (see § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)). The court additionally found that termination would not be detrimental to Troy under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A)-(D). Finally, the court found, under section 366.26, subdivision (g), that adoption is in Troy's best interests. Accordingly, by clear and convincing evidence, the court terminated Sandra and John Z.'s parental rights to their son Troy, selected a permanent plan of adoption ( id., subd. (b)(1)), and referred Troy to DSS for adoptive placement ( id., subd. (i)). Both parents filed notices of appeal (No. D011549), claiming, inter alia, that insufficient evidence supported the termination order, and that termination should not have been based on the court's earlier section 300(e) finding, because that finding was itself erroneous and the subject of a pending appeal in case No. D010733. The Court of Appeal consolidated the two appeals. It concluded that starvation of an infant to near death does not constitute severe physical abuse under section 300(e), and hence it reversed the disposition order in No. D010733 to the extent the jurisdictional finding was based on section 300, subdivision (e), and instructed the trial court to offer reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (a). Accordingly, the court also reversed the judgment terminating parental rights (No. D011549).