In re Amanda A. CA4/1

Filed 2/19/26 In re Amanda A. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 AMANDA A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D086990 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. NJ15973) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ARMANDO T.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Alejandro Morales, Judge. Affirmed. Jack A. Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. David J. Smith, Acting County Counsel, Lisa M. Maldonado, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Natasha C. Edwards, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

This is the third appeal filed by Armando T. (Father) in this dependency action involving 11-year-old Amanda A. He contends no substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding at the contested 18- month permanency hearing that returning Amanda to Mother’s physical custody would not “create a substantial risk of detriment” to Amanda’s “safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.22(a)(1).) Resolving this appeal by memorandum opinion (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851–854), we conclude substantial evidence supports the court’s no detriment finding. We thus affirm its September 25, 2025 order. I. A. In November 2023, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency filed a petition under section 300(d). The petition alleged (1) Amanda’s stepfather had sexually abused her and (2) Mother had failed to protect her. We affirmed the juvenile court’s dispositional order keeping Amanda in out-of-home care, rather than placing her with Father in Ohio. (In re Amanda A. (Sept. 20, 2024, D084041) [nonpub. opn.].) At the 12-month contested review hearing, the juvenile court found it was not in Amanda’s best interest, and would be detrimental to her emotional well-being, if placed with Father in Ohio. Like the juvenile court, we commended Father’s efforts to develop a relationship with Amanda, but found substantial evidence supported the court’s order. (In re Amanda A. (Nov. 24, 2025, D086049) [nonpub. opn.].) B. In recommending Amanda be returned to Mother, the Agency noted Mother has made “significant behavioral changes” since the 12-month review