In re H.O. CA3
Filed 1/31/23 In re H.O. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Placer) ----
In re H.O., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C095838 Law.
PLACER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (Super. Ct. No. 53-005046) AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
A.F.,
Defendant and Appellant.
A.F., paternal grandmother (grandmother) of the minor, H.O., appeals from the juvenile court’s order denying her request that the court place the minor with her. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 361.3, 388, 395.)1 We will affirm.
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
1
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Following H.O.’s birth in August 2019, she was placed in the neonatal intensive care unit for the first month of her life to detox from the methadone her mother, C.O. (mother), was taking during pregnancy. When H.O. was seven and a half months old, she ingested mother’s fentanyl, was hospitalized, and removed from mother’s care. For a two-month period, during which mother was actively using fentanyl and methamphetamine, grandmother would visit H.O. and mother for hours at a time, reportedly unaware that mother was using substances. On March 28, 2020, H.O. was released from her second hospitalization due to drug exposure, removed from mother’s care by the Placer County Department of Health and Human Services (the Department), and placed into emergency foster care with her current foster family. Following the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, H.O. was moved into relative placement with her maternal great-aunt after mother requested this placement. At the time of the hearing, paternity had yet to be established, so grandmother was not considered for relative placement. From March 2020 through October 2020, grandmother did not see H.O. In September of 2020, the maternal great-aunt became overwhelmed in caring for H.O. and gave notice that she could no longer serve as placement for her. H.O. returned to her initial foster family at the end of September 2020, where she has remained since. There were no other family members who were Resource Family Approval (RFA) approved and available to take placement of H.O. at the time. Grandmother requested placement and was referred to complete the RFA process. The Department began considering grandmother for placement. However, grandmother lived in the Bay Area and mother was still receiving reunification services, and the distance between mother and H.O., if she were placed with grandmother, was considered a barrier to reunification. Around this time, H.O.’s father, J.F. (father), was released from custody, and mother expressed
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)