In re A.A. CA3

── In re A.A. CA3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 27, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/27/26 In re A.A. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) In re A.A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C103998 Law. (Super. Ct. No. STK-JD-DP- SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES 2025-0000131) AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.W., Defendant and Appellant. Appellant A.W. (mother) appeals the juvenile court’s dispositional orders removing newborn Alex A. (the minor) (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361, subd. (c))1 and bypassing mother for reunification services (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(6)). She contends the court erred in detaining the minor at the initial hearing and in finding mother waived her right to contested hearing/trial on the jurisdiction/disposition through her nonappearance. She also contends substantial evidence does not support the court’s removal findings or 1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 1 the section 361.5 subdivision (b)(6) bypass. Disagreeing, we affirm the orders of the juvenile court. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On April 17, 2025, the minor was placed in protective custody by the San Joaquin County Human Services Agency (Agency) pursuant to a warrant following his premature birth the week before. Mother’s oldest child, I.H., was removed as an infant in 2018 following suspicious injuries and adopted by a relative. Mother’s next child, M.A., was also removed as an infant in 2024. We describe those two cases in detail in our Discussion, post. Mother reported having all necessary supplies to care for the minor, and that she had not used marijuana for a year or methamphetamine for three years. She and the minor tested negative for drugs, and the nurse had no concerns with mother’s interactions with the minor; mother was breastfeeding and pumping and otherwise acted appropriately. Mother told the investigating social worker that she had completed a drug program, parenting classes and therapy (in M.A.’s dependency case), but her services were terminated when she was bypassed. Maternal great-grandmother offered to allow mother and the minor to live with her if needed. While acknowledging the extensive services completed by mother in M.A.’s case, the report identified mother as a high risk because of her failure to acknowledge the severe injuries suffered by I.H. six years before and her inconsistent explanations for those injuries. The Agency recommended out-of- home placement. The petition alleged the minor fell within the provisions of section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (j). The failure to protect subdivision (b)(1) allegations were that the minor had suffered or was at substantial risk of suffering “serious physical harm or illness as a result of the failure or inability of his or her parent or legal guardian to supervise or protect the child adequately” and/or “by the willful or negligent failure of the parent or legal guardian to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or 2 medical treatment.” The facts supporting these allegations pertaining to mother were based solely on I.H.’s and M.A.’s cases. The abuse of sibling (subdivision (j)) allegations stated that the minor’