In re Nathaniel G. CA2/2
Filed 1/27/21 In re Nathaniel G. CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
In re NATHANIEL G., et al., Persons B303973 Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP01712A-B) LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff,
v.
CRISTIAN G.,
Defendant and Appellant;
NATHANIEL G., et al.,
Minors and Respondents.
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Martha Matthews, Judge and Robin Kessler, Judge Pro Tempore. Affirmed.
Keiter Appellate Law and Mitchell Keiter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Janette Freeman Cochran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minors and Respondents. _________________________________ Appellant Cristian G. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s January 6, 2020 orders continuing jurisdiction over his children, Nathaniel (born 2013) and Evelyn (born 2015) under Welfare and Institutions Code sections 300 and 364.1 We affirm the orders. BACKGROUND Prior appeal In a prior appeal, this court affirmed the juvenile court’s orders establishing dependency jurisdiction over Nathaniel and Evelyn under section 300, subdivision (b), based on father’s marijuana use; his violation of a court order requiring monitored visitation between the children and their mother, Martha C. (mother); and mother’s substance abuse. We also affirmed the juvenile court’s dispositional orders. (In re N.G. (Oct. 7, 2020, B299550 [nonpub. opn.].) The dispositional orders placed the children with father in the paternal grandmother’s home and required father to complete a parenting program, to submit to 10 random drug and alcohol tests, and to enroll in a drug rehabilitation program with random testing if father had an unexcused missed test or a positive test for anything other than decreasing levels of marijuana.
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)