In re A.F
Filed 2/24/06 In re A.F. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| In re A.F. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| MADERA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. P.F., SR., Defendant and Appellant. |
F048383
(Super. Ct. Nos. BJP015642 & BJP015643)
OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County. Nancy C. Staggs, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.)
Thomas Owen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Douglas W. Nelson, Acting County Counsel, and William G. Smith, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
The Madera County Department of Public Welfare (the Agency) filed two petitions under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)[1] alleging that A.F. and P.F., Jr., came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. As we will explain, the sole factual basis for the petitions was that the children's mother, Angel, used marijuana one time shortly before A.F. was born. Unbeknownst to Angel at the time of her use, the marijuana was laced with methamphetamine.
P.F., Sr., the children's father, appeals from the jurisdiction order and the disposition order that placed the children in foster care. The primary basis of the appeal is that the orders were not supported by substantial evidence.
We will affirm the jurisdiction order because A.F. tested positive for marijuana at birth, which was substantial evidence to support this order. We will reverse the disposition order that returned the children to foster care because it was not supported by substantial evidence, and the juvenile court failed to consider reasonable alternatives to removal of the children.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY[2]
The petitions filed by the Agency alleged there was a substantial risk the children would suffer serious physical harm or illness because of the inability of the parents to provide regular care for the children due to Angel's mental illness or substance abuse. (§ 300, subd. (b).) The facts alleged to support this allegation were (1) Angel tested positive for â€
