N.A.

N.A. v. Super. Ct. CA4/3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 21, 2015G051893California2,258 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ikola, J.

FACTS

Two of the three dependency cases began in July 2013 when mother gave birth to H.A. Both mother and H.A. tested positive for methamphetamine, and mother admitted she had not obtained prenatal care during the final months of her pregnancy.

1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

2 2 Mother and father pleaded no contest to a failure to protect allegation in the dependency petition (§ 300, subd. (b)). The court sustained the petition and declared H.A. and his (at the time) one-year-old brother O.A. to be dependents of the court. H.A. and O.A. were placed with relatives. Mother made enough progress during the next year that, upon recommendation of the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA), the court returned H.A. and O.A. to mother’s custody in July 2014 under a family maintenance plan. But mother tested positive for methamphetamine on August 15 and 25, 2014. Moreover, mother was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol in September 2014. SSA detained H.A. and O.A. and filed a supplemental dependency petition in late September 2014. The dependency petition for newborn daughter A.A. was filed in October 2014. Among other things,…

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.