There was sufficient evidence that the minor was adoptable despite prenatal drug exposure and other factors. The mother challenged the sufficiency of evidence to support a finding that the minor was adoptable, arguing that his prenatal drug exposure, speech delays, and lack of information about his paternity made him not generally adoptable. The court rejected the argument, holding that the possibility that the minor may have future problems does not preclude a finding that he was likely to be adopted. Since his caregivers were interested in adopting him, there were likely others who would not be dissuaded by his challenges. The mother also challenged the evidence that there were 43 families available to adopt a child with the minor’s characteristics, because it was obtained telephonically during a brief recess. She argued that the evidence was unreliable, inadmissible, and violated the 10-day notice rule. The court found this issue waived for failure to raise it below. Further, the fact that the caregivers’ homestudy might not be approved did not make the minor unlikely to be adopted because the minor was generally adoptable.