In re N.T. CA4/3

FACTS

I. Background

This is not Mother’s first appeal from proceedings in the juvenile court that began when the Agency filed a dependency petition in 2015, alleging she posed a substantial risk to the physical and emotional well-being of her then five minor children.2 Mother previously appealed following the 18-month permanency review hearing in

1 As the children’s father did not appeal from the court’s order, he is not a party in this appeal. Two of Mother’s children have since reached the age of majority and are no longer within the juvenile court’s jurisdiction.

2 December 2017. There, the juvenile court had declined to return the children to Mother’s custody and, instead, had ordered long-term foster care as the permanent plan for the children. In that appeal, Mother challenged the court’s finding that returning the children to her care posed a substantial risk of detriment to their physical or emotional well-being. We affirmed the court’s order, finding it supported by substantial evidence. (In re C.W. et al. (July 30, 2018, G055742) [nonpub. opn.].) The facts leading to dependency and the family’s progress through the 18-month review are included in our…