In re O.G. CA2/2
Filed 3/19/21 In re O.G. CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 O.G., a Person Coming Under B307109 the Juvenile Court Law.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. No. 20CCJP02106) AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
N.G.,
Defendant and Appellant; O.G., Appellant.
APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Philip L. Soto, Judge. Affirmed.
Christine E. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Veronica Randazzo, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Aida Aslanian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minor.
______________________________________
The juvenile court sustained a dependency petition against J.R. (Father) and appellant N.G. (Mother). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b)(1).)1 At disposition, the court removed appellant O.G., Mother’s newborn son, from parental care and custody. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the orders. The record shows Mother is a habitual drug abuser who used methamphetamine “all day, every day” since 2017, tested positive for it at prenatal exams and refused entreaties to begin a drug abuse treatment program while pregnant. Chronic drug use is prima facie evidence of her inability to provide regular care to a newborn. Though Mother entered a drug treatment program after giving birth, when faced with the possibility of losing O.G., her drug abuse during pregnancy showed indifference to O.G.’s safety and justified his removal from her care and custody until she demonstrates a commitment to sobriety. We affirm.
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)