Filed 5/18/21 In re S.A. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA In re S.A. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D078500 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. Nos. J520221A-C) Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.A., Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Marian F. Gaston, Judge. Affirmed. Nicole Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of County Counsel, Caitlin E. Rae, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Lisa M. Maldonado, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. In this juvenile dependency proceeding involving his three children, J.A. (Father) appeals an order made at his six-month review hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.21, subdivision (e).1 At that hearing, the court found, inter alia, that the reunification services provided to Father were reasonable. He contends that the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) unreasonably relied on ineffective referrals for services to an agency in Mexico, where he was residing, and failed to facilitate in-person visits with his daughters based on unreasonable concerns about the risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. We conclude that the juvenile court did not err in making its ruling and therefore affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2 In December 2019, the Agency petitioned the juvenile court under section 300, subdivision (b), on behalf of four-year-old S.A., two-year-old D.A., and one-month-old G.A. The Agency alleged that when G.A. was born, she tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine. S.R. (Mother) also tested positive at the time of birth and again weeks thereafter.3 Father denied knowledge of Mother’s drug use, leading the Agency to allege that his inability to identify whether Mother was using illegal substances undermined 1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 2 “In accord with the usual rules on appeal, we state the facts in the manner most favorable to the dependency court’s order.” (In re Janee W. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1444, 1448, fn. 1.) 3 Mother has not appealed and the details of her involvement in the proceedings post are not relevant to the issues raised on appeal. Accordingly, this opinion does not discuss Mother unless relevant to the issues raised by Father on appeal. 2 his ability to protect his children and placed them at substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness. In the detention report, the Agency explained that after G.A. was born, she was placed in the neonatal intensive care unit due to her in utero exposure to methamphetamine. Years earlier, Mother had tested positive for methamphetamines while she was pregnant with S.A. The Agency also …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals