In re Samantha B.

Full title: ALAMEDA COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MOLLIE…

Court: California Court of Appeals, First District, Third Division

Date published: Jun 19, 2007

No. A113978 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 19, 2007)

Opinion

In re SAMANTHA B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. ALAMEDA COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MOLLIE M., Defendant and Appellant. A113978 California Court of Appeal, First District, Third Division June 19, 2007

Alameda County Super. Ct. No. OJO6003761

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed on May 29, 2007, be modified as follows:

1. On page 5, the first sentence of the first full paragraph under the heading “DISCUSSION” is modified to read as follows:

A child may be adjudged a dependent of the court when “[t]he child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness, as a result of the failure or inability of his or her parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child, or the willful or negligent failure of the child’s parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child from the conduct of the custodian with whom the child has been left, or by the willful or negligent failure of the parent or guardian to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment, or by the inability of the parent or guardian to provide regular care for the child due to the parent’s or guardian’s mental illness, developmental disability, or substance abuse.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b).)

2. On page 7, at the end of the last sentence of the last full paragraph of the “DISCUSSION”, add as footnote 7 the following:

⁷ In a petition for rehearing filed June 15, 2007, Mother raises the argument that “[t]here was no evidence in the juvenile court below that Samantha was not being provided regular care.” Mother “apologizes to the Court to the extent that she could have articulated the issues better in her opening and reply briefs . . . [and] believes the jurisdictional issue was raised sufficiently, albeit not succinctly, in the initial pleadings to justify this petition.” Even assuming this argument is properly before the court, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that there was a substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness to Samantha, because of Mother’s substance abuse. Mother made no claim she could provide Samantha regular care. She argued such care could be provided by grandmother.

There is no change in the judgment. Appellant’s petition for rehearing is denied.