In re I.G. CA4/2

INTRODUCTION

Defendant and appellant J.G. (father) argues the juvenile court improperly

delegated to his son’s legal guardians the authority to decide if he could visit his son. We

disagree and affirm.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On February 8, 2017, the San Bernardino County Children and Family Services

(CFS) filed a section 300 petition on behalf of I.G. (the child), who was seven years old

at the time.1 The petition alleged that the child came with section 300, subdivisions (b)

(failure to protect), and (g) (no provision for support). Specifically, the petition alleged

the child’s mother, M.G (mother),2 had a history of failing to provide necessary medical

treatment for the child, who had serious and chronic medical conditions. It further

alleged that she was unable to provide a suitable plan of ongoing care and support for the

child, that she had a substance abuse problem and untreated mental health issues, and that

she and father had domestic violence issues. As to father, the petition alleged that he

knew or should have known mother had substance abuse issues but failed to protect the

child, and that he was incarcerated and could not arrange for care of the…