In re Mary C.
Annotate this Case
Mary, then 18 months old, was removed from her parents in 2016, due to both parents’ drug abuse, chronic unemployment, homelessness, and neglect of their children. Aurora was eight months old when she was removed. A brother, age four, was freed for adoption in 2018. Since December 2017, the girls have lived in the concurrent foster-adoptive home of Shawn, a woman in her forties who formerly worked in early childhood development but now stays at home with the children. Shawn lives with her partner and their 16-year-old daughter. Shawn wanted to adopt the girls. The parents engaged in reunification services half-heartedly but participated regularly in visitation. The court terminated reunification services. The maternal grandmother petitioned to adopt Mary; her petition was denied because Mary was in a concurrent foster-adoptive home.
The section 366.26 report recommended termination of parental rights and a permanent plan of adoption. The social worker had observed the girls' connection to their foster-adoptive family and described the girls as generally healthy but having special needs. The parents testified in support of their claim of a beneficial parental relationship. The court selected adoption as the permanent plan and terminated both parents’ rights in the children. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting an argument that the children have too many special needs to be generally adoptable and should not have been deemed specifically adoptable because the section 366.26 report failed to contain all the statutorily required detail about the prospective adoptive mother and failed to report on her longtime partner who resides with her.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.