T.J.

T.J. v. Superior Court CA4/2

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 9, 2022E079293California2,859 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS

S.A. is three years old and was removed from his parents’ care shortly after birth.

San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (the department) completed a

Resource Family Approval (RFA) referral and placed S.A. with T.J. in August 2019. In

January 2020, T.J. received an RFA license. The next month, T.J. told the department

she was willing to be a concurrent placement. At the time, T.J. had been a foster parent

for over 15 years. T.J. lived with two adult daughters, an adoptive teenage son, and three

more children she had legal guardianship over. In addition, she had one biological adult

son, one biological adult daughter, and two adoptive adult sons who, as of January 2021,

did not live in the home.

The court terminated mother’s reunification services in June 2020. The court

continued S.A.’s placement with T.J. and noted this placement was a concurrent planning

home.

Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

2 As of October 2020, S.A. was attached to T.J. and comfortable in her home. In

January 2021, the department identified T.J. as S.A.’s prospective adoptive parent. S.A.

appeared “to be very comfortable in the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.