In re Anthony v. CA2/4

Filed 4/27/16 In re Anthony V. CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Anthony V. et al., Persons Coming B264036 Under the Juvenile Court Law. _____________________________________ (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. DK08787) LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ROGER V.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Timothy R. Saito, Judge. Affirmed. Nancy E. B. Nager, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Roger V. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, and Stephen Watson, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In this dependency action, Roger V. (father) appeals from an order finding his sons, Anthony V. and Andre V., to be persons described by section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code,1 dismissing the case, and releasing them to the custody of both parents under the informal supervision of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department). (§ 360, subd. (b).) The order is affirmed.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In December 2014, Roger V. and Y.M. (mother) were living with their sons, Anthony (born in 2001) and Andre (born in 2007), at the home of the children’s maternal grandmother (Myra) and maternal great aunt (Rosa). Police were called when Myra and Rosa had a loud and violent argument in which the parents intervened. Later that day, the Department received an anonymous report that Anthony and Andre were suffering from “emotional abuse and general neglect” (this allegation was not substantiated and is not at issue on appeal), that mother and father smoked methamphetamine in a car outside their house, and that the boys had access to methamphetamine. Department social worker Simone Williams interviewed the parents about the drug allegations. Although father admitted prior use of methamphetamine, he denied current use. After being asked to take a drug test, he admitted using methamphetamine the day before at his “dealer’s home.” The revelation was a surprise to mother, who said she felt “betrayed” because father had promised “he would not use anymore.” Both parents agreed not to leave the children alone with father. Williams interviewed the children individually. Anthony denied witnessing any substance abuse in the home or by any family members. Andre also denied witnessing any substance abuse. The next day, father tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine. Mother tested negative.