In re A.G. CA4/1

── In re A.G. CA4/1 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 16, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/15/26 In re A.G. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA In re A.G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH & D087317 HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. NJ15518B) Plaintiff and Respondent, v. K.S., Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael P. Pulos, Judge. Affirmed. Heather Elaine Tesdahl, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Damon M. Brown, County Counsel, Lisa M. Maldonado, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Indra N. Bennett, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.  I. INTRODUCTION K.S. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order placing her daughter A.G. (Child) with a relative in Michigan without specifying a minimum number of in-person visits. Mother argues the placement and visitation order thwarted any possibility of successful reunification and, thus, constituted an abuse of the court’s discretion. We disagree and affirm. II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Referral and Petition Under Section 3001 The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) received a referral for suspected child abuse after Child and Mother tested positive for fentanyl and other dangerous drugs in the hospital when Child was born. As a result of Mother’s drug use, Child suffered withdrawal symptoms requiring methadone treatment in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. The Agency was concerned that Mother used substances for the last 15 years, including during pregnancy with her previous daughter, A.A., resulting in Mother failing to reunify with A.A. In that case, Mother did not engage in substance abuse treatment, the juvenile court terminated her parental rights, and her cousin, G.M., adopted A.A. Here, because of Mother’s extensive substance abuse history, the Agency worried that Mother would continue using substances and fail to prioritize Child’s safety and needs. Although G.M. wanted to care for Child, Mother did not want Child to live with G.M. but did not have another friend or relative to care for Child. 1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code, unless stated otherwise. 2  As a result, the Agency filed a petition under section 300, subdivision (b)(1), alleging a substantial risk existed that Child would suffer serious physical harm or illness if she remained in Mother’s care. The juvenile court made a true finding on the petition, placed Child in a foster home, and ordered the Agency to provide reunification services to Mother. The court also directed the Agency to evaluate relatives for placement. This included G.M. Since G.M. lived in Michigan, she needed Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC)2 approval for placement of Child with her. B. Mother’s Treatment and Visitation In the first few months of services, Mother completed a detox program and then started a residential drug treatment program. But she continued to test positive for substances, and the residential program discharged her for having drugs delivered to her. Subsequently, Mother was arrested for drug possession. Upon Mother’s release from custody, she ent