J.G. v. Superior Court CA1/2

── J.G. v. Superior Court CA1/2 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 22, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/22/26 J.G. v. Superior Court CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO J.G. et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF A174819 SOLANO COUNTY, (Solano County Respondent; Super. Ct. No. JD2300050) SOLANO COUNTY HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, Real Party in Interest. J.G. (Father) and O.R. (Mother) each filed a petition for extraordinary writ relief from orders issued at a 24-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.25)1 terminating family reunification services and setting a permanency planning hearing (§ 366.26) as to their now three-year-old son, P.G. Both parents argue that the juvenile court erred in (1) finding that the Solano County Health and Social Services Department (Department) offered them reasonable reunification services, and (2) denying their requests to continue services under section 352. We deny the petitions on the merits. 1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 1  BACKGROUND2 Petition, Detention, Jurisdiction, and Disposition On August 21, 2023, the Department filed a petition alleging then eight-month old P.G. came within the meaning of section 300, subdivision (b) (failure to protect). It alleged that about a week earlier, Mother suffered a miscarriage while at home; demonstrated erratic behavior by placing the fetus on the floor and failing to seek immediate medical attention; and tested positive for methamphetamine while hospitalized for the miscarriage. In addition, Mother previously had tested positive for methamphetamine when she was pregnant with P.G. in October 2022, and at P.G.’s birth in December 2022. As to Father, the petition alleged he was aware Mother had tested positive for methamphetamine, but failed to take action and provide protective capacity within the home. At the detention hearing on August 22, Mother was assisted by a Triqui interpreter, and Father a Spanish interpreter (as they would be at the hearings throughout this case). The court detained P.G. and placed him with a foster family. It granted the parents supervised visitation and ordered that both parents submit to alcohol and drug testing and that Mother additionally participate in mental health services. On October 30, the Department filed its jurisdiction and disposition report, which described the family’s background as follows. The parents were born in Oaxaca, Mexico, met and started dating there, and were not married. At some point, they emigrated together to the United States. The family lived together in Fairfield at the time of the petition. Mother reported that 2 We summarize the facts in the record in a light most favorable to the juvenile court’s orders. (See In re Shelley J. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 322, 329, superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in In re Christopher C. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 73, 82–83.) 2 she could speak, read, and write in Triqui, her primary dialect, as well as in Spanish, though later she would state she could not read or write in Triqui. Father stated he spoke both Triqui and Spanish, but did not know how