positive drug test in California

2013Similarly, in People v. McLernon, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th 569 , a single positive drug test during the probationary period disqualified the defendant there from mandatory relief under the first scenario.

2013Similarly, in People v. McLemon, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th 569 , a single positive drug test during the probationary period disqualified the defendant there from mandatory relief under the first scenario.

2013(Id. at pp. 574—575.) People v. Butler, supra, 105 Cal.App.3d 585 , an earlier case than Chandler , likewise held that the failure to pay the full amount of restitution disqualified the defendant from relief under the first scenario: “Butler does not contend he fulfilled all the conditions of his probation.

2013(Id. at pp. 573, 575.) People v. Butler, supra, 105 Cal.App.3d 585 , an earlier case than Chandler , likewise held that the failure to pay the full amount of restitution disqualified the defendant from relief under the first scenario: “Butler does not contend he fulfilled all the conditions of his probation.

2026In In re David M. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 822 , 829–830, the appellate court concluded that a single positive drug test during pregnancy was insufficient to support jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b)(1), where there was no evidence that this single incident of drug use affected the mother’s ability to care for her child.

2026Similarly, in In re L.C. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 646 , 649–650, a legal guardian’s occasional methamphetamine use outside the child’s home was insufficient to support jurisdiction under subdivision (b)(1) where the 10 evidence showed his drug use did not interfere with his ability to care for the child.

2025Even after DCFS informed him of V.J.’s test results, Father expressed that he did not believe the child was born with drugs in her system. “ ‘[D]enial is a factor often relevant to determining whether persons are likely to modify their behavior in the future without court supervision.’ ” (In re A.F. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 283, 293 .) Given Father’s denials, the juvenile court reasonably could infer that Father was unwilling to recognize the seriousness of Mother’s substance abuse problem and its impact on the children.

2022(People v. Smith (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 492, 499 ; see U.S. Const., 14th Amend.; Cal. 2All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 3 The District Attorney also filed a subsequent petition to revoke defendant’s probation after defendant: twice “[f]ailed to sign a Mental Health Release of Information/Consent” as directed; and “[s]ubmitted a positive drug test” for methamphetamine. 4 The sentence consisted of the upper four-year term for the felony infliction of corporal injury on a spouse/cohabitant count and a three-year upper term for the felony false imp

2020Mother relies on Rita L. v. Superior Court (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 495, 505 , in which the Court of Appeal held that a parent’s single positive drug test, when viewed in the context of the entire case, was not substantial evidence that returning the child to the parent’s custody would create a substantial risk of detriment.

2016(Jennifer A. v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1322, 1343 .) Mother also told DCFS investigators that father showed up to visit Angel while exhibiting signs of marijuana use, and claimed that father frequently got high with friends in East Los Angeles.

2015In Edgerton v. State Personnel Bd. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1350 (Edgerton), a state agency terminated an employee 19 (Edgerton) based on a positive drug test.

2015He relies principally on In re Destiny S. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 999 [ 148 Cal.Rptr.3d 800 ] (Destiny S.) for this assertion.

2015He relies principally on In re Destiny S. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 999 [ 148 Cal.Rptr.3d 800 ] (Destiny S.) for this assertion.

2014Code, § 1200, subd. (a).) The confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that, "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him." In Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36, 68 , the United States Supreme Court held that testimonial hearsay evidence is admissible in a criminal prosecution only when the proponent establishes unavailability of the declarant and a prior opportunity for cross-examination of the declarant.

2014There was no evidence that he had undertaken any steps to ameliorate or resolve his drug use, and it was therefore reasonable for the juvenile court to infer Father continued to use drugs at the time of the jurisdiction hearing.3 As explained in In re S.O. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 453 , 461, a parent’s “‘[p]ast conduct may be probative of current conditions’ if there is reason to believe that the conduct will continue.” Moreover, Father later recanted his earlier admissions and denied that he or Mother ever used illicit drugs, which supported the 3 Though counsel stated that Father had enrolled

2014In re James R. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 129 is distinguishable.

2014(Bruner, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 1181 .) A search incident to arrest revealed his possession of rock cocaine.

2014One group involves an identified, specific hazard in the child’s environment--typically an adult with a proven record of abusiveness.” (Ibid.) In this case, although years had passed since the dependency court (in October 2005) sustained the prior petition filed in San Bernardino County, finding true the allegations Priscilla had physically abused H.T. (then 9 years old) by hitting him with extension cords, phone wires and television wires causing scarring to his back and arms and by hitting him with a chair and “anything that is handy” (and had a positive drug test at the time of Alex’s birth

2014It is true that “the fact that a child has been left with other caretakers will not warrant a finding of dependency if the child receives good care.” (In re Rocco, supra, 1 Cal.App.4th at p. 824 .) First, we note it was not the case that Priscilla provided for the two older boys’ care by making alternate arrangements for them with the maternal grandmother.

2014DISCUSSION Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 , appointed appellate counsel refers to the following as possible, but not arguable, issues: (1) "Was the court's finding that [Thomas] violated probation supported by sufficient evidence?"; and (2) "Did the court err in admitting Coronel's hearsay testimony about the positive drug test results from the lab on the east coast?" On November 18, 2013, we granted Thomas permission to file a brief on his own behalf.

2014The juvenile court’s primary concern was A.R.’s best interests and the provision of a safe home free from the negative effects of substance abuse. (§ 300.2; In re B.T. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 685, 692 .) The evidence showed that Father admitted to using cocaine, he admitted to using drugs at about the time of A.R.’s birth and he had a recent positive drug test for opiates which he ingested some time after he had the opportunity to observe the effects of drug use on his newborn daughter.

2000Although a violation of chain of custody procedures does not per se invalidate a drug test (see Frank v. Department of Transp., F.A.A., supra, 35 F.3d at p. 1556 ), based on the documentation before him, the MRO did not have enough information to certify that the chain of custody was “complete and sufficient.” ( 49 C.F.R. § 40.33 (a) (1999).) Indeed, he had no information before him documenting the chain of custody for Edgerton’s samples after they were received by the Centinela laboratory.

2000(Interstate Brands v. Local 441 Retail, Wholesale (11th Cir. 1994) 39 F.3d 1159 , 1162.) As the trial court found, Caltrans failed to sustain its burden of proving that Edgerton suffered a positive drug test because its documentation of the chain of custody for Edgerton’s samples was lacking.