In re Nolan L. CA2/8

Filed 11/14/23 In re Nolan L. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

In re NOLAN L., a Person Coming B327022 Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. No. 17CCJP00940B AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RANDY L.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Julie Fox Blackshaw, Judge. Affirmed. Megan Turkat Schirn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and David Michael Miller, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________

Appellant Randy L. is the father of minor Nolan L. Nolan’s mother is not a party to this appeal. Father appeals denial, after a full hearing, of his second Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 388 petition for further reunification services. We conclude the juvenile court acted within its discretion in denying father’s petition, despite his recent sobriety and progress in his drug treatment, given father’s history of relapsing into drug abuse. Accordingly, we affirm. BACKGROUND Nolan came to the attention of respondent Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) in September 2020, when he was just six months old. Father, while under the influence of methamphetamine, thought he heard a loud bang in his house. He rushed Nolan out of the house, drove him to another location, and called law enforcement to check on mother. Law enforcement found mother safe. She explained “this was the second time father ha[d] left the home with [Nolan] due to him hallucinating while on methamphetamine.” Shortly thereafter, law enforcement took Nolan into protective custody under exigent circumstances without a warrant. He was placed in the home of Mr. and Ms. B. (the B. family), where he has remained ever since. The juvenile court exercised jurisdiction under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j). As relevant here, allegations against father included that he endangered Nolan by abusing methamphetamine (which he used while caring for Nolan); failing to protect Nolan from mother’s substance abuse; and failing to