In re S.G. CA4/3

Filed 12/11/14 In re S.G. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re S.G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, G050454 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. DP024768-001) v. OPINION C.J.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Andre Manssourian, Judge. Affirmed. Diana W. Prince, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Nicholas S. Chrisos, County Counsel, and Karen L. Christensen and Aurelio Torre, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. No appearance for the Minor.

The juvenile court found it had dependency jurisdiction over now nine- year-old S.G. (child) under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1) (failure to protect). (All further statutory references are to this code.) In the disposition, the court ruled child was a dependent child and removed her from the custody of defendant, C.J. (mother). Mother maintains the finding she “may have an alcohol abuse problem” is insufficient evidence justifying the court assuming jurisdiction over child. We conclude sufficient evidence supports the judgment and affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In March 2014 plaintiff Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) filed a dependency petition on behalf of child, alleging child suffered or was at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm due to mother’s failure to adequately protect her or mother’s inability to properly care for child due to substance abuse, or both. The petition was based on five factual allegations. First, mother did not timely pick up child from school and when she arrived it appeared she was intoxicated. After failing to pass a field sobriety test, mother was arrested for driving under the influence and for driving with a blood-alcohol level of .08 percent or higher. Second, mother and child had been homeless, living in the car, for the past month. Third, mother “may have a substance abuse problem.” Child explained “mother drinks ‘bad stuff’ and gives herself shots to ‘take out her blood.’” Fourth, mother had hit child with a belt. Finally, the alleged father’s whereabouts were not known and he had not provided proper support or care of the child. At the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the court admitted the jurisdiction dispositional report and three addenda and mother’s guilty plea (Tahl form; In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122, 132) to driving under the influence. In addition, the social worker and mother testified. The evidence showed the following: