In re I.A. CA2/6

Filed 4/14/25 In re I.A. CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In re I.A., A Person Coming 2d Juv. No. B341485 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. 22JV00033) (Santa Barbara County)

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

R.G. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

R.G. (father) and H.A. (mother) appeal the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights as to I.A. (Welf. & Inst. Code

§ 366.26.)1 Both parents assert ineffective assistance of counsel claims. We will affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On January 31, 2022, Child Welfare Services (CWS) filed a juvenile dependency petition regarding 12-month-old I.A. CWS filed an amended petition on March 4, 2022. That petition alleged I.A. was medically fragile and diagnosed with pseudohypoaldosteronism type 1B, gastronomy tube dependence, and severe eczema. She had been hospitalized twenty times for dire electrolyte abnormalities. Doctors expressed concern that I.A. stabilized in the hospital only to return shortly after going home. The amended petition also described father’s criminal history, including a December 2021 DUI arrest. At a February 2022 hearing, the court ordered detention and four hours per week of supervised visitation. At a March 2022 hearing, parents rested on jurisdiction and submitted on disposition. The court found the allegations in the amended petition true by a preponderance of the evidence and set a June 2022 interim review hearing. According to a report for that June 2022 hearing, a doctor indicated I.A.’s condition had “improved tremendously since being removed from the parent’s [sic] care.” At the hearing, the court approved the case plan. The six-month status report indicated mother had been visiting consistently to the best of her ability, although she had canceled visits due to illness and transportation. Father’s visits had been inconsistent due to his work schedule. The court continued reunification services.