In re I.G. CA1/1

Filed 12/9/21 In re I.G. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

In re I.G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

HUMBOLDT COUNTY A162115 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, (Humboldt County Super. Ct. No. JV190156) Plaintiff and Respondent, v. T.G., Defendant and Appellant.

In this dependency appeal, T.G. (father) challenges the juvenile court’s dispositional orders with respect to his daughter, I.G. (born January 2014). Specifically, he claims that the juvenile court’s removal order was not supported by substantial evidence and that the minor should be returned to his care. While this appeal was pending, I.G. was placed with father under a family maintenance plan. We therefore dismiss the appeal as moot. BACKGROUND D.G. (mother) and father have a history of negative interactions toward each other which have adversely affected I.G. and their ability to coparent the minor. Most recently, the Humboldt County Department of Health &

1

Human Services (Department) filed a petition alleging that I.G. came within the provisions of subdivisions (b)(1) and (c) of section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code1 based on concerns that the interactions between the parents were “so negative, aggressive and emotionally destructive” that I.G. experienced physiological stress symptoms. On June 21, 2020, I.G. felt such severe abdominal pain that she had to be airlifted to UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital to rule out appendicitis. The Department further alleged that father falsely accused mother of refusing to consent to medical care for the minor and that he obtained a letter stating mother should have no contact with the minor despite the fact that she had been granted full custody. Jurisdiction was established under section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (c) after a contested hearing on September 23, 2020. The minor remained in mother’s custody with supervised visitation for father. In December 2020, minor’s counsel filed a modification petition, arguing that I.G. was at risk in mother’s care and requesting that the minor be removed from mother. The Department supported the minor’s section 388 motion. It recommended reunification services for both parents, including psychological evaluations to assess the impact of their mental health on I.G. On December 18, 2020, the juvenile court granted the modification request, detaining I.G. from mother and increasing father’s visitation in light of his cooperation with the Department. The Department filed a section 342 subsequent petition a few days later, memorializing its position that mother’s mental health and/or substance abuse issues had interfered with her ability to provide safe and appropriate parenting for I.G. Father filed his own section 388 motion on January 12, 2021. He requested that there be no change in I.G.’s foster care placement without a