In In re G.M. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 552, a married aunt of the children was identified as the prospective adoptive parent. (Id. at pp. 557-558.) The social worker's adoptability assessment raised a question about the aunt's marital status. (Id. at p. 558.) However, the record was "silent regarding whether the aunt was lawfully separated or she had secured or could secure her husband's consent to her adopting the children." (Id. at p. 560.) On appeal, the children's mother argued that the trial court should have considered whether there was a legal impediment to the aunt's adoption of the children. (Ibid.) Initially, the In re G.M. court stated that "evidence of a legal impediment to adoption under the Family Code by an identified prospective adoptive parent is relevant when a social worker's opinion that a dependent child will be adopted is based in part on the willingness or commitment of an identified prospective adoptive parent." (In re G.M., supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at p. 562.) Thus, the mother could have asked the social worker or the aunt "about whether the aunt was lawfully separated or had or could obtain her husband's consent to an adoption. The court in turn could have considered any evidence on the subject in evaluating whether it was likely the children would be adopted within a reasonable time. ." (Id. at p. 563.) The problem with the mother's argument on appeal, the In re G.M. court explained, was that she did not adduce any such evidence at trial. (Ibid.) "Having not raised the legal impediment question in the trial court, mother failed to properly preserve for appellate purposes her claim of trial court error. . She also did not object to the department's preliminary assessment as inadequate in this regard and thus forfeited the opportunity to now place the blame for the silent record on the department." (Id. at pp. 563-564.)