In re Samantha H.
Filed 5/26/20 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
In re Samantha H., a Person B300065 Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County ______________________________ Super. Ct. Nos. DK23919A LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent, v.
M.M.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jean M. Nelson, Judge. Affirmed.
Mitchell Keiter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, Assistant County Counsel, and Jeanette Cauble, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________
Mother appeals the juvenile court’s order selecting adoption as the permanent plan for her daughter Samantha H. Mother argues the juvenile court erred when it ordered adoption absent evidence in the record that the prospective non-relative adoptive parent was advised of and affirmatively rejected guardianship in favor of adoption. We conclude the juvenile court appropriately ordered adoption and affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On July 17, 2017, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 300, subdivision (b)(1) alleging jurisdiction over Samantha (then nearly four years old) and J.C., Jr. (then a newborn) based on J.C.’s positive test at birth for amphetamine and marijuana and Mother’s drug use. The court detained Samantha from Mother and released J.C. to his father. Samantha was placed with M.W., the mother of Samantha’s godmother. This appeal involves Samantha only. On October 10, 2017, Mother pleaded no contest and the court sustained the petition as amended. The court ordered Mother to participate in a full drug/alcohol program, random drug testing, a 12-step plan, parenting classes, and individual counseling. Mother was ordered to participate in a reunification plan and she was granted monitored visits with Samantha.
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)