In re A.M. CA3

Filed 3/16/21 In re A.M. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

In re A. M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile C092699 Court Law.

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY HUMAN (Super. Ct. No. SERVICES AGENCY, STKJVDP20170000382)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J. M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant challenges the juvenile court’s restraining order requiring her to stay away from: (a) her daughters A. M. and K. M. (both dependents of the court under § 300

1

of the Welf. & Inst. Code1); and (b) her daughters’ caregivers, arguing there was insufficient evidence for the order. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND By July 6, 2020, the juvenile court had terminated appellant’s parental rights to her daughters A. M. and K. M. Also on July 6, 2020, a social worker employed by San Joaquin County Child Protective Services (CPS) filed in the trial court a request for a restraining order against appellant, claiming appellant and her “representatives, ha[d] repeatedly gone to” the home of appellant’s daughters’ caregivers, which “caused the caregivers to have a reasonable fear for the safety of themselves and the children,” given appellant’s “documented volatility and mental health struggles.” In a September 2020 hearing at which appellant appeared telephonically, the social worker testified she sought the restraining order because, despite “several conversations with [appellant], as well as [appellant’s] mother . . . , as well as a family friend . . . not to disturb the caregivers’ home,” all three women “ha[d] visited the caregivers’ home insisting to see the minors.” The social worker explained that appellant’s mother lived “[a]bout a mile” from the caregivers’ home, and that -- though the social worker had previously told appellant’s mother not to go to the caregivers’ home unannounced -- appellant’s mother went to the home in December 2019 “to deliver Christmas gifts to the minors.” Further, though the social worker had asked appellant not to go to the caregivers’ home “[a]pproximately ten times” in the year before the hearing, appellant admitted to the social worker that she went to the caregivers’ home multiple times, including in April 2020 (when appellant left a gift in the front yard of the home) and on consecutive days in May 2020, when (appellant told the social worker) appellant’s chase of a vehicle that ran