In re M.R. CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 15, 2022C094365California5,263 words

Opinion

Opinion

Earl, J.

BACKGROUND

The precipitating incident for this case occurred in July 2019, when J.G., mother of the minors (mother) tested positive for cocaine when delivering her daughter, I.R. Mother had received a similar test result approximately 18 months earlier, when she had delivered another daughter, L.R. In an interview at the hospital, mother denied she had used drugs and stated father, with whom she shared four children, M.R., A.G., L.R., and I.R., also did not use drugs. She also identified C.G., her son with a different father, who lived with his paternal grandmother. 2 Although mother and father had not obtained prenatal services or baby supplies while mother was pregnant with I.R., father had recently started working at Amazon and the two were planning to use his first paycheck to buy supplies. Mother stated she felt “overwhelmed” because she had to take care of the children by herself. She spoke to father but did not receive much help from him because he was working. 1. Petition and Initial Detention On August 6, 2019, the San Joaquin County Human Services Agency (Agency) filed a section 300 petition alleging, among other things, a failure to supervise or protect minors C.G.…

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.