In re Alejandra T. CA2/4
Filed 7/24/15 In re Alejandra T. CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR
In re ALEJANDRA T., a Person Coming B259180 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK80340)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
DAMIEN T.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Marguerite Downing, Judge. Affirmed. Jamie A. Moran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mark J. Saladino, County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, Navid Nakhjavani, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
______________________________
Appellant Damien T. (father) appeals from an order terminating parental rights with respect to his daughter Alejandra T. under Welfare and Institutions Code section 1 366.26. Specifically, father challenges the juvenile court’s adoptability finding. Because there is substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding, we affirm the order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY 2 In June 2012, Claudia O. (mother) gave birth to Alejandra T., who was born approximately seven weeks premature and weighed only four pounds. Alejandra was placed in the neonatal intensive care unit. The hospital contacted the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) based upon mother’s prior DCFS history and her history with drug usage. When Alejandra was six days old, mother left her at the hospital without making plans for her care or supervision, and did not inform the hospital or DCFS of her whereabouts. DCFS filed a section 300 petition based upon mother and father’s history of domestic violence (counts a-1 and b-2), mother and father’s history of illicit drug use (counts b-1 and b-3), and mother’s abandonment of Alejandra at the hospital six days after the child’s birth (counts b-4 and g-1). In September 2012, the juvenile court found that Alejandra was a person described by section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b), and detained her from mother and father. The court sustained the section 300 petition, declared Alejandra a dependent of the court, and ordered family reunification services. Mother made no contact with DCFS between December 2012 and February 2013. During this time, a social worker received a medical report which indicated that mother was 25 weeks pregnant and her urine had tested positive for methamphetamine and marijuana. After numerous attempts to reach mother through family members, DCFS received a voice message from her in February 2013. The message did not indicate a
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)