In re A.F. CA5

INTRODUCTION

Prior to a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 366.26, the Kern County Department of Human Services (department) recommended a permanent plan of legal guardianship over then eight-year-old A.F. by her caregivers, J.T. and D.T. The department did not recommend adoption as it was concerned with the commitment by D.T. to an adoption of A.F. At a hearing held January 21, 2015, despite the department’s recommendation of guardianship, the juvenile court terminated T.F.’s (mother) parental rights finding that, although A.F. was not generally adoptable, she was specifically adoptable by J.T. and

D.T.

On appeal, mother complains the juvenile court’s finding that A.F. is adoptable is not supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, she contends the department’s determination that A.F. was neither generally nor specifically adoptable was ultimately a recommendation for legal guardianship, and, hence, the only relevant evidence in support of the adoptability finding was A.F.’s “tainted” testimony and that of D.T., the purported cause of the taint to A.F.’s testimony. Mother asserts legal guardianship is the most appropriate permanent plan in light of…