In re C.S. CA4/2
Opinion
Opinion
I. BACKGROUND
B.S. (mother) gave birth to C.S. (child) in July 2019. Both tested positive for
methamphetamine. Within days, plaintiff and respondent San Bernardino County
Children and Family Services (CFS) filed a section 300 petition alleging, among other
things, a failure to protect the child due to mother’s substance abuse. (See § 300, subd.
(b)(1).) At the detention hearing, mother identified a man named Joshua as the father,
Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
2 and when asked by the court whether anyone else could be a father, she additionally
identified a man named Russell. She did not identify defendant and appellant P.R. as a
father. The child’s birth certificate lists no father. Although the section 300 petition
named Joshua as an alleged father and made allegations against him as well, the juvenile
court later found him to be a nonparty. Neither Joshua nor Russell is part of this appeal.
At a combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing in October 2019, the juvenile
court ordered family reunification services for mother. At the six-month review hearing,