(Super. Ct. Nos. JD229191, JD229215)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robie, J.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Appellants T. R., the mother, and D. R., the father of the minors D. R. and S. R., appeal from the Sacramento County Juvenile Court's (juvenile court) order terminating their parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code,*fn1 §§ 395, 366.26.) They contend insufficient evidence supports the juvenile court's adoptability finding, the minors were specifically rather than generally adoptable, and the adoption assessment was inadequate. We affirm.
In October 2005, Alameda County Social Services Agency (Alameda County) filed a dependency petition alleging jurisdiction over one-month-old D. R. and her nine-year-old brother A. W.*fn2 The petition alleged the father hit A. W. with a belt, D. R. tested positive for opiates at birth, the mother admitted taking a cocaine and alcohol cocktail, the parents admitted to domestic violence, the father was convicted of a domestic violence offense, he admitted smoking marijuana, and was a registered drug offender. D. R. was released to the mother later that month.
A. W. disclosed that the parents hit him with a belt, showing an old, healed two-inch mark on his chest. The parents would throw shoes, clothes, and other objects at each other, at times while the mother carried the infant D. R. The mother admitted the physical abuse allegation, but minimized the domestic violence. The father said A. W. was a liar and a thief.
The Alameda County Juvenile Court sustained the petitions in December 2005. The children were removed with reunification services for the parents.
The six-month report noted D. R. was unable to sit up and just learning to crawl. The mother made minimal progress with her service plan and the father made none. Services were terminated at the September 2006 six-month review hearing.
Sixteen-month-old D. R. was at an eight-month developmental level as of the January 2007 section 366.26 report. D. R. had delayed gross and fine motor skills and could not sit up without being propped up with pillows.
Alameda County recommended the maternal aunt for placement and possible adoption in April 2007. The minors were placed in her home that month.
D. R.'s former foster mother said he suffered from many developmental delays and required a lot of attention. D. R. had difficulty with speech development, saying few recognizable words and often whining rather than trying to talk.
The mother gave birth to S. R. in July 2007; mother and child both tested positive for cocaine at birth. Alameda County filed a section 300 petition in July 2007, alleging failure to protect and abuse of siblings. The petition was sustained in August 2007, and S. R. was placed with the mother with family maintenance services.
The maternal aunt was appointed guardian for A. W. and D. R. in September 2007. Alameda County filed a supplemental petition (§ 387) in November 2007 seeking termination of the guardianship, alleging the maternal aunt left A. W. and D. R. with the mother and did not return to pick them up, used drugs and alcohol, and wanted to relinquish the minors. The boys were detained and placed in foster care. The guardianship was terminated and reunification services were reinstated for the parents, who had started to work on their case plans.
S. R.'s dependency was joined with A. W. and D. R.'s in January 2008. A. W. and D. R. were returned to the parents' care with family maintenance services in March 2008.
The family moved to Sacramento in April 2008. The January 2009 report recommended continuing services and transferring the case to Sacramento County. The social worker noted the children looked well cared for and the apartment was extremely neat. The mother was getting an evaluation for D. R., who appeared to have autism.
The juvenile court accepted the transfer in February 2009. The Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (Sacramento County) reported on the dependency in March 2009. The mother was ordered to drug test in February 2009 but had not yet tested. The father violated ...