In re S.S. CA4/3

Filed 12/29/21 In re S.S. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

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

ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, G060507 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 20DP0904) v. OPINION M.S,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Mary Kreber Varipapa, Judge. Affirmed. William D. Caldwell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Leon J. Page, County Counsel, and Karen L. Christensen and Jeannie Su, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant M.S. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order removing her child, S.S., from her custody. Mother points to her acknowledged sobriety, stability, and compliance with the court’s order and case plan. However, substantial evidence supports the court’s finding that S.S. was at substantial risk of harm in mother’s custody because of her relationship with C.S. (father), who has unresolved substance abuse issues. Further, the court did not abuse its discretion in approving the Social Services Agency’s (the agency) case plan, despite mother’s progress. Accordingly, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY S.S. was born to mother in July 2020. Mother and S.S. both tested positive for amphetamines while in the hospital, and mother admitted using methamphetamine. Mother lived with father, in an environment mother admitted involved “excessive substance abuse.” Mother had a previous child with another man, C.S., to whom she was still married. C.S. has sole custody of that child as a result of a prior dependency case in Riverside County, which arose from mother’s methamphetamine abuse. The agency sought and received a protective custody warrant within days of S.S.’s birth. S.S. was placed with his maternal aunt. In the months that followed, the agency interviewed mother and father. Mother stated she wanted to share custody of S.S. with father, whom she called her fiancé. Mother indicated she had gotten sober and would stay sober and abide by the court’s orders. Mother consistently tested negative, visited S.S. regularly, and participated in therapy and, for a time, a Narcotics Anonymous program. However, father’s presence at the visits with S.S. often interfered with the visits, as mother and father frequently argued, and the caregiver believed father sometimes attended visits while under the influence. Father also failed to participate in drug testing. In May of 2021, mother was permitted to engage in unsupervised visits with S.S., outside the presence of father. At around the same time, mother began inquiring about filing a restraining order against father, and indicated to the social