In re Matthew S. CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 13, 2015C076913California2,208 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

The three older minors, Matthew, age 4; Braylon, age 2; and Nevaeh, age 1, were first removed from parental care in August 2012 due to the parents’ methamphetamine use and ongoing domestic violence. The court adopted a reunification plan in October 2012 and over the next several months, the parents complied with the plan and made progress toward reunification. We note that Gary C. is the biological father of Braylon, Nevaeh and a fourth child, Dustin and the presumed father of Matthew. The terms “father” and “parents” refer only to Gary C. because Matthew’s biological father is not a part of the case. The court returned the minors to the parents in August 2013 under a family maintenance plan. At the review hearing in October 2013, the court continued the family maintenance plan. Dustin was born shortly before the October review hearing. In December 2013, the Agency filed supplemental petitions to again remove Matthew, age 5; Braylon, age 3; and Nevaeh, age 2, from parental custody due to the parents’ relapse into methamphetamine use and failure to comply with the family maintenance plan. The Agency also filed an original petition to remove two-month-old…

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.