Although the minor had exhibited severe behavior problems in several foster homes, the juvenile court identified adoption as the permanent plan for him under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (b)(2). Mother contended on appeal that the court abused its discretion by determining that the minor’s adoption was probable. The appellate court agreed, and reversed and remanded. The Court of Appeal first determined that an order under section 366.26 (b)(2) was appealable because it precluded an order into long-term foster care. But here there was no evidence suggesting that the minor would probably be adopted. The reports showed that the minor had already failed two placements with family members, and his behavioral problems were well documented. There was no basis for a finding that adoption would be a probability within 180 days. Remand was required to allow the juvenile court to revisit a full range of options available, including long-term foster care.