1

Filed 10/6/15 In re A.D. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

(Sacramento)

----

In re A.D. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile 

Court Law.

C078210

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF 

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JOSHUA D.,

Defendant and Appellant.

(Super. Ct. Nos. JD234758, 

JD234759)

Joshua D. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s dispositional order placing 

minors A.D. and D.D. into foster care. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 300, 395.)1 Father 

contends he should have received placement as the nonoffending noncustodial parent 

 

1

 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
2

(§ 361.2), and the court’s finding that such placement would be detrimental to the minors 

was not supported by clear and convincing evidence. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In May 2014 the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services 

(the Department) filed petitions under section 300, subdivision (b) as to A.D. (five years 

old) and D.D. (seven years old). The petitions alleged that mother (C.S.) abused 

methamphetamine and heroin, suffered from mental health problems, had threatened to 

kill the minors and herself, and had failed on informal supervision. Father (identified as 

the “legal” father) was alleged to be living in Ohio.

According to the detention report, mother claimed she moved to California with 

the minors to get away from father, who lived with the paternal grandmother in 

Westerville, Ohio, because he engaged in domestic violence and substance abuse; he was 

frequently in jail. D.D. said he had not seen or spoken to father in a long time, and A.D. 

did not even remember his name. A probation officer in Franklin County, Ohio, stated 

that father was on probation until November 2015 for the felony of attempting to carry a 

concealed weapon; he had been sentenced to four to six months in a community-based 

correctional facility that provided therapy and a substance abuse “component.”

Father stated that he was the minors’ biological father, had signed statements of 

paternity for both, and was named on their birth certificates. He and mother were not 

married but had been engaged until they broke up and went their separate ways when 

D.D. was five years old. He used to call the minors daily, but now mother would not let 

him speak to them. He last had contact with them when mother brought them to Ohio the 

previous Christmas; he saw them once for four hours. He paid child support even though 

there was no custody order.

Father denied domestic violence against mother. The offense for which he was on 

probation consisted of “having a gun under the seat” without a permit while transporting 

large sums of money from a liquor store he managed. He had been addicted to opiates, in 
3

particular Percocet, which he had first used two years earlier for a shoulder separation; he 

had “weaned” himself off Percocet and last used it in December 2013. He was about to 

start alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment as a condition of probation. At the initial 

hearing, the juvenile court found father was the provisionally adjudicated father of the 

minors. In response to the court’s subsequent parentage inquiry, the court received a 

2012 Ohio judgment ordering father to pay child support for the minors.

An informational memorandum filed in June 2014 stated the minors were doing 

well in their current placement. D.D. had had one phone call with father, which raised no 

problems. However, A.D. refused to speak to father; she feared him because he had hit 

mother.

The jurisdiction/disposition report, filed in July 2014, recommended out-of-home 

placement for the minors and reunification services for the parents. The report stated it 

would be detrimental to the minors to place them with father because he had a history of 

substance abuse and domestic violence; there was no evidence he had become clean and 

sober or that he had benefited from AOD programs to date; he lacked insight into his 

problems; he denied committing domestic violence, even though A.D. had confirmed 

mother’s allegations; and he had not participated in services for domestic violence or 

anger management.

Father had criminal convictions for driving on a suspended license in 2012 and 

receiving stolen property in 2013 in addition to his latest offense. As part of his most 

recent sentencing, he was ordered to complete inpatient and outpatient substance abuse 

treatment programs, submit to drug testing, obtain his GED, and not to carry any 

weapons.

According to mother, father tried to beat her with a baseball bat, and when she 

blocked him he “permanently broke her pinky finger.” He regularly beat her, and he 

sometimes threatened to kill and bury her. His threats had frightened her out of 

attempting to get a restraining order against him. He had also forced her to use cocaine 
4

for the first time. She claimed that he dealt drugs, had a lot of money and expensive cars, 

and was “into anything and everything,” “just like the maternal [sic] grandmother.”

Mother was concerned about father having contact with the minors. He had been 

alone with them only twice in their lives; on one of those occasions, according to D.D., 

he took them to a house party that featured alcohol. He had not contacted them in three 

years.

Father sent an eight-page fax to the Department, including a letter in which he 

stated his love for the minors and his desire to have them in his custody. He said he 

loved them and missed them “more than you will ever know.” He said he could provide 

a stable home for the minors with their own bedrooms, and he would have a lot of family 

support. Up until two years earlier, they had lived with him and he had met all their 

needs; mother had never worked. He attached a certificate of achievement for his

successful completion of the Columbus Public Health Alcohol and Drug Treatment 

Program as of March 6, 2013, plus copies of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), Narcotics 

Anonymous, and Cocaine Anonymous attendance forms for October and November 2013 

and a copy of his “Ohio High School Equivalence Diploma” dated December 2, 2013.

Father said he had managed a store called the Wine and Cheese Emporium and 

had worked there for 12 years, until the business sold its liquor license. At the time of the 

July 2014 report, he had been employed by a moving company for a couple of months 

and also had a one-person lawn service.

Father claimed paternity of another child, born in 2000, who “was not more than a 

year old” when he died while in his mother’s care. According to father, child protective 

services (CPS) was not involved in the case.

Father denied domestic violence with mother and claimed he had no idea why she 

was “making things up.” They had never done anything more than argue and yell, 

sometimes in front of the minors.
5

Father said he had used alcohol from his teens until 14 months previously, when 

he was incarcerated on the concealed weapon charge; he admitted alcohol might be a 

problem for him, since he had gotten in trouble because of it. He used marijuana from 

age 18 until a couple of years before the July 2014 report but denied having a marijuana 

problem; he gave it up “because he thought it was time to get his life back together.” He 

also began using cocaine at 18 but had stopped a few years earlier; he did not have a 

cocaine problem. He had been given a prescription for Percocet two years before, when 

his shoulder was injured; he had last used it on June 5, 2014, and did so “maybe once per 

month, if that,” without a prescription. He denied having a problem with Percocet. He 

said he had learned “a lot of things” from his substance abuse programs but could not 

elaborate.

A.D., who was five years old, reported that things were going well in placement. 

She did not know father’s name and did not recall ever living with him, but she reported 

that he physically abused mother, which made A.D. “sad and scared.” She missed father 

only “a little” and did not want to speak with him. D.D., who was seven years old, 

reported that placement was going well. He remembered living with father, whom he 

said is named Josh, a “long time ago.” He knew about the incident when father hit 

mother with a bat because mother told him about it; he was asleep when it happened. She 

also told him that father once put a gun to her ear. He loved and missed both parents. He 

wanted to live with father and mother, but first he wanted father to be nice to mother; his 

second choice would be to live with “Papa” in Ohio.

At the jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court found that father was the minors’ 

adjudicated father and sustained the allegations of the section 300 petition.

An addendum report filed in July 2014 stated that there had been CPS referrals on 

the family in Ohio, including a report that father had sexually abused a 12-year-old girl. 

The disposition was “indicated,” which apparently is the equivalent of “inconclusive” in 

California CPS reports.
6

In August 2014 father filed a motion requesting presumed father status and, in a 

pretrial statement filed simultaneously, claimed he was entitled to custody of the minors.

An August 2014 addendum report stated that D.D. was “terrified” when he spoke 

to father on the telephone, and afterward he would cry and have nightmares. The one 

time A.D. agreed to talk to father on the phone, she was “shaking.” However, D.D. said 

that if father came to Sacramento, D.D. would like to visit him and “would give him a big 

hug.” A.D. said she did not want to visit with father. The minors’ caregiver consistently 

stated that both minors resisted speaking with father and appeared to fear seeing him.

The report opined that it would be harmful to place the minors with father before 

they had built a trusting relationship with him. At a contested disposition hearing on 

August 26, 2014, father testified as follows:

He and mother lived together from 2005 to 2012. He tried to contact the minors 

after he and mother separated, but she was always too busy. It was three or four months 

before he found out from a cousin where mother and the minors had gone. (On crossexamination, father admitted he had done nothing to try to find them and had not sought a 

custody order.)

Once he had located mother and the minors, he had contact with the minors once 

or twice a week at mother’s residence until she moved to California with them without 

giving him information about where they had gone. After that, he had contact with her 

twice a month and occasionally with the minors. On cross-examination, he admitted that 

he did not go to California or attempt to get more regular visitation with the minors; 

however, during redirect he claimed mother had never tried to work with him to make 

that happen.

Mother brought the minors to Ohio for two Christmas visits; father saw them for 

four or five hours the last time. That visit had gone well; the minors showed no fear of 

him. However, since then he had not spoken to them, even by phone. The day before the 
7

hearing he had had his first visit with them since Christmas; they smiled and hugged him 

and showed no reluctance to see him.

Father denied any physical altercations with mother. He also denied that she had 

ever accused him of domestic violence. He admitted that D.D. had described domestic 

violence between the parents but claimed mother’s real abuser was an earlier boyfriend.

Father sustained two DUI (driving under the influence) convictions in 2012, a 

month or two apart; he was granted two years’ probation, which was now completed. He 

was allowed to drive to and from work only. His concealed weapon case also arose in 

2012, leading to a conviction in 2013 and six months in jail.

Father saw alcohol as his only substance abuse problem. He had taken his last 

drink in April 2013. However, he had tested positive for Percocet in June 2014 (two 

months before the present hearing), which was a probation violation. As a probation 

requirement for his DUI offenses he had attended an AOD program. After he completed 

his sentence for carrying a concealed weapon, he was ordered into another AOD program 

and had been five weeks into it when his work schedule began to interfere. As a result, 

he was scheduled to begin a new AOD program in about a week.

Father had learned in his AOD program that alcohol causes “[b]lurred vision. 

Slurred. It controls you.” Asked about the effect of a parent’s drinking on his or her 

children, father said: “Just through different personality, I guess. Acting different.” 

Asked to explain himself further, father said: “I wouldn’t. I can’t. I don’t know.” The 

only bad effect drinking had on him personally was blurred vision, and only if he had “a 

lot” to drink.

Father’s family, who were also his support system, all lived in Ohio. Father lived 

with his parents. The paternal grandmother drank three or four beers a night, which 

could be a problem; however, she had never received help for that and he had never 

asked her to do so.
8

Father did not believe he had an anger problem. He admitted he formerly had a 

drug problem. His use of Percocet started with a prescription for a shoulder separation 

while he was in jail; the injury was a result of falling downhill while running from the 

police. He testified that he now used Percocet without a prescription. He was aware that 

it contains oxycodone.

Father acknowledged that using methamphetamine or pills around children could 

endanger them. However, using marijuana would not have that effect; there was a “[b]ig 

difference” between marijuana and methamphetamine. Father admitted that when he and 

mother were together, they jointly smoked marijuana and took prescription medications 

without prescriptions.

Father admitted he had never participated in any program (AA, substance abuse, 

parenting, or anger management) without a court order.

At a disposition/paternity hearing in September 2014 the juvenile court found that 

father was the minors’ presumed father. Disposition was continued pending receipt of an 

expedited Interstate Compact for Placement of Children (ICPC) report from Ohio.

An October 2014 addendum report stated that father had been referred to services 

and drug testing, but as of July 9, 2014, there was no evidence he had participated. A 

kinship supervisor from Ohio reported outstanding concerns about father: he appeared 

unwilling to participate in services, and his CPS history needed further investigation.

A December 2014 addendum report informed the juvenile court that the ICPC 

report was received on November 5, 2014. It approved placement of the minors with 

father, on condition that he complete a court-approved case plan. Since the Department 

had already stipulated that father should receive services with the goal of placement, this 

recommendation did not change anything, in the Department’s view.

The addendum stated: “[T]he report also noted a number of concerns related to 

the children and the family which may impact placement. Firstly, the report noted that 

[father] has an indicated sexual abuse on record for a twelve year old female from 2004. 
9

The only details provided regarding this matter is [sic] that the child was a cousin of his 

girlfriend and she had been digitally penetrated and she manually masturbated [father] 

while both were intoxicated. [Father] refused to give any details and directed the author 

of the home study report to contact his attorney for further information. Secondly, 

[father] is on probation until 2015 and has a suspended driver’s license. However, 

[father] reports that he is allowed to drive to and from work. Thirdly, [father] tested 

positive for cocaine in September of 2014 during a routine probation drug and alcohol 

screening. The author of the home study did not note any sanction by the Probation 

Department regarding the positive test. Lastly, the maternal [sic; paternal] grandmother

and step grandfather reside in the home and would be provid[ing] child care for the 

children. The author of the home study notes that she is uncertain how [father] would 

care for the children if he was on his own. Given these concerns, the Department is

recommending that the father complete the goals of his case plan prior to placement of 

the children.” (Italics added.)

The ICPC report, filed in the juvenile court on December 10, 2014, came with a 

cover letter dated October 27, 2014, signed by a Franklin County, Ohio, Children 

Services home study assessor and her supervisor. The letter stated: “[T]he home study is 

[a]pproved at this time.

“Points of consideration for the placement include:

“• [Father] will be provided with a copy of caseplan [sic] to complete identified 

goals.

“• [Father] will remain in compliance with probation and the courts.”2

 

2 This awkwardly worded passage creates confusion about whether father is 

recommended for placement before completing his case plan. The wording in the report 

itself (under “Agency Recommendations”), quoted below, is clearer and is consistent 

with the Department’s opinion that father should receive placement only after doing so.
10

The home study included the following points: Father lived with his mother and 

stepfather. He denied any CPS history. As to the report of sexual abuse in 2004, father 

at that time declined an interview through his attorney. He now believed the case had 

been dismissed and alleged that the purported victim was “a troubled youth.” Father is

on probation until November 15, 2015; he claimed he regularly tested for drugs through 

probation and was in compliance. He claimed he did not currently take medications. The 

family home appeared suitable in all respects. The paternal grandmother would provide 

alternative child care if needed.

Under the heading “Issues/Concerns related to other child(ren) or adult(s) in the 

family that may impact placement,” the report mentioned those cited in the Department’s 

addendum. The report stated that despite father’s positive test for cocaine in September 

2014, he “is currently in good standing with probation” and “is not currently at risk for 

violation.”

Under the heading “Agency Recommendations,” the report stated: “Based on all 

known and available information, placement of this child [sic], in the home of this . . . 

caregiver[,] this home study is approved on the condition that [father] is provided with a 

case plan and completes his case plan goals.” (Italics added.)

At the continued dispositional hearing on December 17, 2014, mother’s counsel 

and minors’ counsel joined the Department’s counsel in opposing immediate placement 

of the minors with father. The juvenile court ruled as follows:

“As to the issue of disposition, having had the opportunity to review the ICPC and 

review the testimony that was provided, certainly, I think it was clear after the Court 

received the testimony that [father] initially made a fairly decent impression upon the 

Court.

“Unfortunately, the ICPC provides information to the Court that is inconsistent 

with some of the testimony that he provided. Probably most concerning is the positive 

test for cocaine in September. This was following his trial testimony where he was very 
11

clear that he had been engaging in services to address substance abuse issues. What was

notable about his testimony from the trial -- said he was able to tell the Court that he was 

learning about alcohol and how it affected him, how it controlled him, how it affected his 

children, and that children all have different personalities, so it impacts them 

different[ly]. But despite questions . . . at the time, he wasn’t able to explain how it 

impacted his kids. He was just able to use the phrase it impacted his children, and that it 

affected him by controlling him.

“And I made note that he was able to use the buzz words, but not really able to 

demonstrate any real level of understanding given that then he has a positive test in 

September, and I have absolutely no explanation or further information about how all of 

[a] sudden it is that the man who is using Percocet in May and June and has multiple 

DUIs is now using cocaine in September, despite the fact that he also testified that he was 

going to be engaging in, yet, another class to address issues of the alcohol abuse which is 

going to be kind of a higher level class or more intense class. At least that was the 

impression I was going to be left with.

“I also have to consider the relationship that currently exists with his children. It’s 

a very minimal relationship that exists between [father] and these children. And, in part, 

that is of his own choice. So I think that the Department has provided the Court with 

sufficient evidence to make the finding under 361.2 by clear and convincing evidence 

that it would be detrimental to the children, to their safety, protection, and physical and 

emotional well-being if they were to be placed with [father] at this time.

“Certainly, the prior report [about alleged sexual abuse] is concerning. I would 

also agree with that alone may not be enough to keep the children out of his home. But, 

again, it appears that the ICPC worker attempted to engage [father] on that issue, and he 

was not willing to converse with the social worker who was conducting the evaluation. 

So for these reasons, the Court at this time is going to adopt the findings [of the 

jurisdiction/disposition report].”
12

The juvenile court thereafter entered a written order denying placement of the 

minors with father on the basis that, by clear and convincing evidence, such placement 

would be detrimental to the minors’ safety, protection, or physical or emotional wellbeing. The court also noted that father’s progress in programs and services to date was 

“minimal.”

DISCUSSION

Father contends the juvenile court erred by finding clear and convincing evidence 

that placement of the minors with him would be detrimental to them. We disagree.

When a child is removed from parental custody, the juvenile court must 

“determine whether there is a noncustodial parent that desires to assume custody of the 

child.” (In re Adrianna P. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 44, 59; cf. § 361.2, subd. (a).) “If that 

parent requests custody, the court shall place the child with the parent unless it finds that 

placement with that parent would be detrimental to the safety, protection, or physical or 

emotional well-being of the child.” (§ 361.2, subd. (a).) That finding must be made by 

clear and convincing evidence. (In re Marquis D. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1813, 1827-

1829.)

The juvenile court must weigh all relevant factors in determining detriment under 

section 361.2, subdivision (a). (In re Luke M. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1425-1426 

(Luke M.).) In doing so, the court has “broad discretion to evaluate not only the child’s 

physical safety but also his or her emotional well-being. In an appropriate case, all that 

might be required is a finding such a placement would impair the emotional security of 

the child.” (In re C.C. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1490.)

On appeal, we review the record in the light most favorable to the order to 

determine whether there is substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact 

could find clear and convincing evidence that the child would suffer detriment. (In re 

Patrick S. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1254, 1262 (Patrick S.); In re John M. (2006) 

141 Cal.App.4th 1564, 1569 (John M.); Luke M., supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at p. 1426.) 
13

“Clear and convincing evidence requires a high probability, such that the evidence is so 

clear as to leave no substantial doubt. [Citation.]” (Patrick S., supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at 

p. 1262.) Applying that standard of review, we find substantial evidence to support the 

order.

First, substantial evidence supported the juvenile court’s finding that father denied 

or minimized his polysubstance abuse problem, which could have caused great detriment 

to the minors had they been placed with him. Despite his claim that he had no problem 

with any drug other than alcohol, he tested positive for cocaine (a drug not previously 

identified as a preference) in September 2014—after the disposition hearing at which he 

admitted a positive test for Percocet and while he was still on probation. Furthermore, 

even as to the alcohol problem father admitted, his testimony made clear that he had 

learned little from his multiple AOD programs: he could not get beyond “buzz words” to 

show that he understood the effects of a parent’s alcohol abuse on his or her children, and 

despite repeated DUI convictions he denied that alcohol had any effect on him other than 

“blurred vision” and slurring his speech. In addition, he saw nothing wrong with using 

the paternal grandmother as an alternative caretaker for the minors, despite her habit of 

drinking three or four beers per night, which he admitted could be a problem. In its 

totality, this evidence left no doubt that father had not grasped the dangers of substance 

abuse (his own or the paternal grandmother’s) to the minors or made any serious attempt 

to deal with those dangers.

In determining “substantial physical danger” to a minor for purposes of 

section 300, subdivision (b), “the finding of substance abuse is prima facie evidence of 

the inability of a parent . . . to provide regular care resulting in a substantial risk of 

physical harm.” (In re Drake M. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 754, 766-767 (Drake M.) In 

determining detriment to a minor under section 361.2, which can consist not only of risk 

of physical harm but also risk of harm to the minor’s emotional well-being, evidence that 

a parent’s substance abuse has led to repeated criminal convictions and repeated positive 
14

drug tests while on probation, that the parent continues to deny or minimize the problem, 

and that the parent shows no sign of having benefited from repeated AOD programs is a 

strong indication that the minor would incur detriment from being placed with the parent. 

(See Drake M., at pp. 767-768.) That finding alone justified the denial of placement with 

father.

Father asserts to the contrary that courts have found “there must be some nexus 

between parental drug use and harm to the children” and no such nexus was shown here. 

However, father draws this “nexus” test from jurisdiction cases, where the juvenile court 

must find that “[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[.]” (§ 300, subd. (b), 

italics added; see In re Rebecca C. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 720, 724-725; Drake M., 

supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 757; In re Destiny S. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 999, 1002; 

In re David M. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 822, 828-829; In re Rocco M. (1991) 

1 Cal.App.4th 814, 825-826 (Rocco M.).)

The question under section 300 “is whether circumstances at the time of the 

hearing subject the minor to the defined risk of harm.” (Rocco M., supra, 1 Cal.App.4th 

at p. 824.) Assuming drug use is one of the circumstances, a court may not assert 

jurisdiction based simply on a finding that a parent uses drugs, absent evidence that the 

drug use has created the risk of harm described in the statute. Indeed, in the cases cited 

by father, the evidence was to the contrary: the parent functioned well and the children 

were thriving though the parent abused drugs; the county could not demonstrate the 

children were at risk.

The facts and issues discussed in those cases do not resemble those involved in the 

present case, where the central issue is whether placement with father “would be 

detrimental to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child.” 

(§ 361.2, subd. (a).) The evidence does not paint father as an involved parent who has 
15

demonstrated the ability to parent notwithstanding his polysubstance abuse. Indeed, as 

the juvenile court noted, father’s relationship with the minors could properly be called 

“minimal,” and his own conduct, both before and after his separation from mother, was a 

major reason for the marginal relationship. His well-attested domestic violence with 

mother, which he continued to deny, terrified both minors. A.D. was so frightened of 

him that as of August 2014, shortly before the disposition hearing began, she did not even 

want to speak to him on the telephone. D.D. cried and had nightmares after speaking to 

father; he also expressed the wish that father would be nicer to mother. Father had barely 

seen the minors in the last two years and had made little visible effort to obtain more 

visitation before these proceedings began. So far as he claimed otherwise, the court 

evidently found his uncorroborated testimony not credible, and we do not reweigh the 

court’s factual findings when performing substantial evidence review. Although he did 

more to contact and visit the minors after the proceedings began, he produced no 

evidence other than his own testimony to show that relations had improved significantly.3

We acknowledge that “an alleged lack of a relationship between father and the 

children is not, by itself, sufficient to support a finding of detriment for purposes of 

section 361.2, subdivision (a).” (In re Abram L. (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 452, 464 

(Abram L.), citing John M., supra, 141 Cal.App.4th at p. 1570, italics added.) Here, 

however, as we have already stated, there was more: father’s ongoing substance abuse 

and unacknowledged domestic violence history, which together largely explained the 

 

3

 Father asserts: “[B]y November of 2014, both children reported to the caseworker that 

they wanted to live with [father].” However, father does not support this assertion by 

citing a statement by the minors or the caseworker. Father cites only an unsworn double 

hearsay assertion by the minors’ counsel, which is not evidence. Moreover, counsel was 

referring to a purported ICPC recommendation that neither counsel nor the juvenile court 

had yet seen. As noted, ante, after all counsel had had the chance to review the report, 

the minors’ counsel joined the Department’s counsel and mother’s counsel in opposing 

immediate placement with father.
16

lack of a relationship between father and the minors and the fear they expressed toward 

him as late as August 2014.4

Finally, although compliance with the ICPC is not required before placing minors 

with a noncustodial parent who lives out of state (In re Z.K. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 51, 

66; Patrick S., supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 1263; John M., supra, 141 Cal.App.4th at 

pp. 1572-1573), the juvenile court could properly note the concerns that stemmed from 

the ICPC report in this case, including father’s positive cocaine test in September 2014, 

as among the relevant factors informing the court’s exercise of discretion. (John M., 

supra, 141 Cal.App.4th at p. 1572; see Luke M., supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1425-

1426.) And although the court did not expressly cite the ICPC’s recommendation, we 

note that, like the Department, the ICPC stipulated father should complete his case plan 

before taking custody of the minors. Given the court’s finding that father’s progress in 

completing his case plan to date was minimal, the ICPC’s recommendation was yet 

another basis for refusing to give father immediate custody of the minors.5

Father asserts the juvenile court should have considered the minors’ best interests 

because that is a necessary consideration in every juvenile dependency hearing. 

However, a court need not recite any particular talismanic language to prove that it has 

considered the minors’ best interests. We think it evident that the court did so.

Father asserts the minors expressed the wish to be with father. However, nothing 

in the juvenile court’s disposition prevents the minors and father from reunifying. On the 

 

4

 Contrary to father’s assertion, the juvenile court did not disregard “clear case law” on 

this issue. The cases father relies on do not hold that courts may not use the lack of a 

relationship between parent and children as “one of the evidentiary bases for its finding 

of detriment,” but only that it cannot be the sole basis for that finding. Here, it was not.

5

 Father asserts that the ICPC’s discussion of prior CPS involvement was not enough to 

justify denying placement. Since the juvenile court found expressly that it would not be 

enough, standing alone, we need not discuss this argument.
17

contrary, reunification is the goal, provided father completes his case plan. In the 

meantime, as father recognizes, children in dependency cannot decide where they are to 

be placed, even if much older than the minors in this case. (Abram L., supra, 

219 Cal.App.4th at p. 464; John M., supra, 141 Cal.App.4th at p. 1570.)

Father asserts the minors would have benefited from close contact with their 

extended family. While that may be so, nothing in the disposition here precludes such 

contact.

In short, father has not shown any grounds for setting aside the dispositional 

orders.

DISPOSITION

The dispositional orders are affirmed.

 RAYE , P. J.

We concur:

 HULL , J.

 ROBIE , J.