Filed 6/7/22 In re K.R. CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

In re K.R.

, A Person Coming Under
Juvenile Court Law

. B 3 1 2026

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No.
17CCJP00213B ) LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES

,

Plaintiff and R espondent,

v.

REYNA S

. and JAMIE R.

,

Defendant s and Appellant s

.

APPEAL from order s of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jean M. Nelson , Judge

. A ffirmed

.2 Elizabeth C

. Alexander

, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Reyna S

. Jamie A. Moran, under appointment by the Court of App eal, for Defendant and Appellant Jamie R. Office of the County Counsel, Rodrigo A. Castro

- Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel,
and William D. Thetford , Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent

.

___________________________________________

INTRODUCTION
In Novemb er 2020, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (j) (section 300(b)(1) and section 300(j)) on behalf of five

- month

- old K.R., allegin g he was at risk due to the unresolved substance abuse problems of both appellant

- Mother Reyna S. and appellant

- father Jamie R. In April 2021, the juvenile court sustained the petition and removed K.R. from both parents. On appeal, the y contend
the court erred in finding jurisdiction and removing K.R. from their custody because substantial evidence did not support a finding they had substance abuse problems, or that any such problems placed K.R. at risk. They also contend the court erred by failing to pl ace K.R. with Mother in her inpatient drug treatment program.3 We conclude substantial evidence supports the court’s jurisdictional findings , and the decision to remove K.R. from both parents . We further conclude that the propriety of the

court ’s decision not to place K.R. with Mother in her inpatient program is likely moot as , according to Mother , her residency at that program terminated in July 2021

. In any

event , we discern no error in this decision , and therefore
affirm the court’s orders

.

STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS

A. Background and Prior Involvement with
DCFS Appellants Reyna S. and Jamie R. are the mother and father of K.R. (born June 2020) and Alan (born February 2015). Mother is also the parent of Rose (born Septemb er 2009), Jesus (born August 2010), and Ariel (born September 2017); Father is also the parent of Jaime (born November 2005) and Anthony (born May 2007). This appeal concerns only K.R. Mother’s criminal history included two arrests for possession of a con trolled substance. Father’s criminal history included arre s ts for possession of controlled substance paraphernalia, two arrests for possession of narcotic controlled substances, two arre s ts for being under the influence of a controlled substance, an arres t for bringing a controlled substance into prison, and more than nine4

arrests for possession of a controlled substance. Father is a “registered substance offender.” In 2006, the juvenile court declared Father’s son Jaime a dependent of the court after sustaining a petition alleging that Father and Jaime’s mother had a history of drug abuse, and made drug paraphernalia accessible to Jaime. In 2007, the juvenile court declared Father’s son Anthony a dependent of the c ourt for the same reason . The juvenile court terminated the family reunification services provided in Jaime’s case, and ordered no family reunification services in Anthony’s. In February 2008, the court terminated Father’s parental rights to both childre n. In 2016, the juvenile court declared Mother’s children
Rose and Jesus

-- along with Mother and Father’s son Alan

-- dependents of the court after sustaining a petition alleging that Mother physically abused Rose and Jesus; that Mother and Father engage d in domestic violence in Rose’s presence;
that Mother was a current abuser of methamphetamine and cared for the children while under the influence; and that Father had a history of substance abuse. Family reunification services were terminated due to Mother’s inconsistency in following court orders ; the chi ldren were receiving permanent placement services. During the investigation, Rose stated she had seen both Mother and Father smoke a “white powder” using a “long object with . . . a ‘cup’ at the end.” Rose stated Mother put this object in a drawer, and R ose had also seen it lying on top of Mother’s bed. Rose once gave the object to her maternal grandmother,5

and her grandmother became very upset. When a police officer showed Rose a picture of a pipe used to smoke methamphetamine, she immediately identifi ed it as the object she had seen at her home. Rose also stated that Mother smoked “red little things” which emitted white smoke. Both Rose’s brother and the children’s foster parent reported that Mother informed the children they were in
foster care beca use Rose had lied about her and Father’s drug use. During this investigation, Father denied he had ever used drugs, or had ever seen Mother use drugs. In September 2017, Mother gave birth to Ariel in her home, and then brought her to the hospital. 1 Mot her was very guarded and refused to provide any information. She denied abusing substances, but refused any tests for both t he baby and herself, and wanted to leave the hospital as soon as possible. Ariel was detained; the court eventually
terminated Mot her’s rights to Ariel, and placed her with her
father.

B. DCFS Investigates a Referral In October 2020, DCFS received a referral alleging general neglect of K.R. The reporting party alleged Mother was in a drug treatment program and had tested positive for crystal methamphetamine three days earlier. The reporting party stated that Mother had explained that after she fought

1 Although Ariel was born during the period Mother and Father were together, she is not Father’s child.6

with Father, she left the house alone “to meet her friends to get high.” Mother was “very guarded” because she was
concerned DCFS woul d remove K.R. Before K.R. was born, Mother had told the reporting party she would rather risk birthing him at home than going to a hospital where DCFS
would remove him

. The next day, a children’s social worker (CSW) arrived
at the address listed in the r eferral and discovered that the maternal grandmother (MGM) lived there, but Mother did not. However, MGM was taking care of K.R., and informed
the CSW that Mother left K.R. with her every three or four days, or whenever she was attending her drug treatmen t program. MGM stated Mother had been drug free for “a few months” due to weekly testing at a program. The next day, at the CSW’s request, Mother agreed to drug test. However, when Mother arrived at the testing site,
she informed the CSW she was unable to test because the
CSW had told the site that Mother’s sur name was R. (Father’s last name), but her California ID listed her

surname a s S. (her maiden name). Mother offered to stay at
the site while the CSW correct ed the problem, but the CSW
told Mother she would need to return another day. Mother
then offered to test at her drug treatment program and provide the CSW with the results. The CSW subsequently received negative test results the next day. Eleven days later, the CSW met with Mother at MGM’s home. Mother admitted that Ariel had been placed with her father, and that Rose, Jesus, and Alan were receiving7

permanent placement services, but refused to provide any further details, claiming DCFS had removed the children without proof of abuse or neglect. She elaborated that the

cases resulted from a false accusation that she used drugs

, and that this accusation originated from law enforcement stopping her while she was driving and discovering needle s along with her mother

- in

- law’s medicine in her car . Mother explained that al though she was unable to complete the

court

- ordered programs because she refused to lie and say she had a substance abuse problem, she was now attending a drug treatment program at Clinica Romero because she had no choice. She reiterated she did not have a drug problem and denied testing positive or using drugs. Mother stated
she was very concerned that DCFS would detain K.R., adding that she even hid her pregnancy from her oth er children for fear one of them would mention it to DCFS. Mother claimed she and Father had been in a relationship for five years and had been married for two

. She claimed the relationship was good and was without domestic violence.
She denied Father h ad any substance abuse issues. Mother explained he was a tattoo artist currently working in
Arizona and

, once settled, Mother and K.R. would join him.
The CSW interviewed Father in late October 2020 . He confirmed the length of his relationship with Moth er, that they were the parents of Alan and K.R. , and that he was a tattoo artist currently working in Arizona

, with inten tions to open his own business in Georgia. He expressed no concerns with Mother caring for K.R., claiming neither he nor Mother8

drank alcohol or abused substances. Father stated he could not drug test because he was not in California and did not
know when he would return . The next day, the CSW received another negative drug test result from Mother. In November 2020, the program director at Clinica Romero informed DCFS that Mother was signing a release permitting the sharing of her information with DCFS, and
she also stated that Mother had 22 negative drug tests and one positive test . The director opined Mother was “on the right track.” Two weeks later, Mother informed the CSW that the family had moved to Georgia. When the CSW stated a case had been opened for K.R. and DCFS needed to know where he was, Mother replied that she did not have their address at hand and did not understand why DCFS opened a case
after she had completed her drug treatment program at Clinica Romero (Mother claimed a certificate of co mpletion was pending). The next day, Mother texted her new address to the CSW. She also called, asking the CSW what DCFS’s recommendation was for her case; the CSW stated DCFS wanted Mother to enter an inpatient program with K.R. Mother agreed to look f or such a program in Georgia.
DCFS contacted the Child Protective Hotline in Georgia to explain its concerns regarding the family ; the
service refused to investigate but agreed to conduct a courtesy interview. The service reported back that Mother
and Fa ther were temporarily living with an aunt until they found their own place, that K.R. was dressed appropriately9

and had no marks or bruises, and that the family was well
stocked with baby supplies. DCFS also asked the Gwinnett Police Department to conduct a child welfare visit; the department reported the family appeared normal and in good spirits, and it had no concern regarding K.R.’s safety.

C. DCFS Files a Petition
In late November 2020 , DCFS filed a petition under section 300(b)(1) and section 300(j) on behalf of K.R. Counts
b

- 1 and j

- 1 identically alleged that Mother had a history of substance abuse and was a current user of illicit drugs, rendering her incapable of caring for K.R.; that Father knew of Mother’s substance abuse and failed to protect K .R.; and that K.R.’s siblings (Rose, Jesus, and Alan) were dependents receiving permanent placement services due to Mother’s
substance abuse. Counts b

- 2 and j

- 2 identically alleged that Father had a history of substance abuse rendering him incapable of ca ring for K.R.; that Mother knew of Father’s substance abuse and failed to protect K.R.; and that K.R.’s
half

- siblings (Jaime and Anthony) were prior dependents of the juvenile court who received permanent placement services due to Father’s substance abuse; and that Father

was a r egistered c ontrolled s ubstance o ffender with a criminal history including convictions for drug

- related
offenses. At the detention hearing, counsel for K.R., and for each parent, all asked the court not to detain K.R., contending10

DCFS had not met its burden. The court disagreed, and
ordered K.R. detained. He was transported from Georgia to California and placed in t he care of the maternal aunt and
uncle.

D. DCFS Continues to Investigate The CSW again interviewed Father. Father admitted Mother had one positive drug test but claimed the next five tests were negative. He also stated that Mother was “on the cusp” of gr aduating from her drug treatment program before she had to leave for Georgia. Father reported he was taking a domestic violence class and attending Narcotics Anonymous. 2 He expressed his belief that DCFS failed to help his family, and that the current a llegations about him
were outdated. He admitted that two of his children were
removed from him due to his substance abuse, and that his rights to those children were ultimately terminated. He also
stated that he and Mother had no contact with Alan becaus e DCFS was in the process of terminating their parental rights. He voiced his desire for K.R. to be placed with Mother in her inpatient program. Father agreed to drug test
but stated he had no means to pay for it. He subsequently sent the CSW negative r esults from several drug tests that he undertook voluntarily when he could pay for them. He

2 Father claimed that he and Mother never engaged in domestic violence, but that he was required to take the class because of statements made by Rose.11

also provided evidence he had taken a parenting class, was still enrolled in a domestic violence class, and was trying to get a sponsor in Narcotics Anonymous. Fa ther claimed t he
last time he used an illicit substance was when he used marijuana in 2014. Mother began a six

- month inpatient drug treatment program in January 2021, and the CSW interviewed her telephonically; Mother spoke with the CSW with her
counselor listening in

. Contradicting her previous denial, Mother admitted to the positive drug test in October 2020
but claimed that had been the only positive test . She explained that she had been arguing with Father and, applying a lesson she learned from a do mestic violence class,
had asked a friend to come pick her up to remove her from
the situation and avoid escalating the argument. However,

t his friend was the person who had introduced Mot her to drugs, and after being picked up, Mother subsequently used methamphetamine. She did not return home for two days, leaving K.R. in the care of Father

. Despite Father’s status as a registered drug offender, Mother claimed Father did not

use drugs and was unsure if he was aware she did

. In discus sing the detentions of her other children

, Mother claimed she had been pulled over by police who found syringes in her car

-- Mother told the CSW they belonged to her mother

- in

- law, who was diabetic. 3 Mother

3 According to the 2016 police report associated with this arrest, Mother admitted to the officer “to bei ng a regular (Fn. is continued on the next page.)12

initially denied a history of substance abuse, but the CSW heard Mother’s counselor encouraging her to be honest, and the CSW was placed on hold. When the call resumed,
Mother confirmed a history of substance abuse but refused to specify which substances. She did not know when she began using and, after a while, admitted : “‘I do have a problem. I am working on it.’” Mother stated she had been at her current program since early January 2021

. Despite having claimed previously that she had finished her program
at Clinica Romero and that a certi ficate of completion was pending , she now said she had been ten days away from completing it when s he moved to Georgia. In her current program, she claimed to be testing both weekly and on a
random basis. The CSW spoke with another CSW who had investigat ed the parents in a previous case. The previous
CSW indicated that Mother never worked on her substance abuse issues and continued to use drugs despite attending drug treatment programs. This CSW also noted that the parents blamed Rose and DCFS for their predicament, taking no responsibility for their own actions.

methamphetamine user” but, when asked why she had hypodermic needles in her car, she stated it was because her “‘boyfriend . . . slams meth’” ( i.e., inject s it intravenously). D uring the DCFS investigation of this incident, Mother denied

any drug use, and MGM claimed the needles were for Rose’s medication.13 E. Adjudication and Disposition No witnesses testified at the April 2021 adjudication hearing. Proceeding to oral argument, K.R.’s counsel asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that DCFS had failed to meet its burden, and essentially was advocat ing that the parents could “never r edeem themselves” due to the previously sustained cases. Counsel contended that the parents had been responsive to DCFS, that the positive drug

test in October had been followed by multiple negative ones , that K.R. was situated differently from his detain ed siblings,
and that there was no evidence either parent was ever under the influence while caring for K.R. Mother’s counsel joined the argument, arguing that DCFS had failed to demonstrate a nexus between the parents’ behavior and harm to K.R. Father’s counsel also joined, noting that both parents were enrolled in services, that there was no evidence Father failed to protect K.R., and that the Georgia equ ivalent of DCFS had found no safety issues. DCFS’s counsel asked the court to sustain the petition as pled, pointing to the extensive evidence in the previous cases that the parents abused drugs, their prior and current denials that they were drug abusers despite the ample evidence to the contrary, and the fact that Mother’s use of methamphetamine resulted from a simple domestic disagreement , indicating Mother lacked the necessary coping skills to address emotional issues without resorting to
substance abu se. DCFS’s counsel also pointed out that K.R.14

was too young to verbalize any problem s he experienced in
his parents’ care. The court sustained the petition, finding a long history
of substance abuse for both parents

, and insufficient
evidence they had fu lly addressed the issue . As to Mother, the court cited her repeated denials that she had a substance
abuse problem, her failure to complete previously ordered

program s, and the fact that she had yet to complete a drug treatment program and maintain a peri od of sobriety thereafter. As to Father, the court cited his status as a registered drug offender, the termination of reunification services for his other children, and the evidence that he had used methamphetamine despite his denials to the contrary.
Co ntinuing to disposition, K.R.’s counsel asked the court to release K.R. to both parents or at least to Mother. Mother’s counsel joined, additionally inform ing the court that Mother was in an inpatient drug treatment program that would permit K.R. to resid e with her. Father’s counsel joined

, noting that Father was attending N arcotics
A nonymous and A lcoholics A nonymous and had admitted he
abused substances before 2014, thus dispelling any suggestion he was in denial of his problem

. DCFS’s counsel countered that the parents were still in denial about their substance abuse issues, and that K.R. was a “very, very vulnerable child.” Potentially referring to Mother’s request that K.R. be released to her at her inpatient program, DCFS’s c ounsel stated that “although the15

mother is participating in services, the mother needs to focus on her sobriety.” The court removed K.R. from both parents, again citing their unaddressed substance issues, their minimization of the problems and their credi bility issues, the fact that K.R. was a child of “tender years,” and that “there are no reasonable means by which the baby’s physical health can be protected without removing from the parents.” However, the court found the parents were making an effort an d ordered family reunification services. Both parents timely appealed.

DISCUSSION “On appeal, the ‘substantial evidence’ test is the appropriate standard of review for both the jurisdictional and dispositional findings.” ( In re J.K. (2009) 174 Cal.App. 4th 1426, 1433.) Under a substantial evidence review, “‘we view the record in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s determinations, drawing all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the juvenile court’s findings and orders. Issues of fact and credibility are the province of the juvenile court and we neither reweigh the evidence nor exercise our independent judgment.’” ( In re Joaquin C. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 537, 560.) “Evidence from a single witness, even a party, can be sufficie nt to support the trial court’s findings.” ( In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 451.)16 A. Substantial Evidence Support ed the Jurisdictional Findings

1. Mother Citing Mother’s long history of substance abuse and insufficient evidence that she had fully a ddressed the issue, the court sustained the petition against Mother under

s ection 300(b)(1) and section 300(j). Mother argues that
substantial evidence did not support a finding that , as alleged in counts b

- 1 and j

- 1, she had a long history of substance abuse, or that there was a connection between any purported drug use and harm to K.R. We disagree. In 2016, Mother’s daughter Rose informed DCFS that she saw Mother smoke a white powder using a methamphetamine pipe. I n 2017, when Mother gave birth to Ariel, she refused any tests for both herself and Ariel, and attempted to leave the hospital as soon as possible , giving
rise to an inference that a lab test would have shown
substance abuse . Mother herself reported that in October 2020, after arguing with Father, she asked to be picked up by the friend who introduced her to drugs, and that she later
used methamphetamine. F inally

-- and only after her
counselor encourage d her to be honest

-- Mother expressly
admitted she had a “ ‘ problem ’ ” and was “ ‘ working on it. ’ ”
S ubstantial evidence support ed a finding that Mother had a history of substance abuse.
As for the court’s conclusion that this substance abuse placed K.R. at risk

, a parent may place a child at risk “by17

placing or leaving drugs in a location or locations where they were available to” the child, “ by neglecting [the child]’s needs in a way which might be reasonably expected to create the kind of emotional and psycholog ical conditions in which substance abuse typically thrives ,” and “ by exposing [the child] to her own drug use, thus impliedly approving such conduct and even encouraging him to believe that it is an appropriate or necessary means of coping with life’s
diff iculties.” ( In re Rocco M. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 814, 825. ) Here, Mother admitted to precipitously leaving her months

old infant for two days so she could use methamphetamine. Additionally, Mother constantly left her drug paraphernalia
where Rose found i t , and used drugs in front of Rose, thus normalizing their use

. While there is no evidence that this had yet happened in front of K.R., “evidence of past conduct may be probative of current conditions.” ( In re Yolanda L. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 987, 993.)
M oreover, Mother had yet to fully address her drug
abuse problem and, with one exception, consistently denied having a drug problem

. T he CSW who had investigated Mother’s previous case opined that Mother did not take responsibility for her actions, instead blaming her daughter or DCFS for her predicament

. “ O ne cannot correct a problem one fails to acknowledge

. ” ( In re Gabriel K. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 188, 197

. ) We also cannot ignore that
Mother was found to have physically abused Rose and Jesus ; it is not un reasonable to infer a nexus between the physical abuse and Mother’s drug abuse . Additionally, Mother18

consistently evinced a lack of forthrightness with DCFS, for example falsely claiming she had completed her Clinica Romero program, denying that she had ever tested positive for drugs , and for the most part, denying her drug abuse problem . On this record, we conclude substantial evidence supported the finding that Mother’s substance abuse pla ced
K.R. at risk. Mother argues the court ignored evidence that she was rehabilitated and not a danger to K.R. , but such an argument is essentially a request that we reweigh the evidence, which we do not do. ( In re Joaquin C. , supra, 15 Cal.App.5th at 560.) The cases Mother cites are inapposite. 4 Mother also argues there is insufficient evidence she failed to protect K.R. from Father ’s substance abuse , as alleged in counts b

- 2 and j

- 2. Because we find that the court did not err in sustaining counts b

- 1 and j

- 1, we need not address this argument. ( In re Alexis E., supra , 171 Cal.App.4th at 451 [“When a dependency petition alleges

4 ( In re Drake M. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 754, 767 [court erred in finding jurisdiction due to Father’s use of marijuana, absent evidence Father was under the influence when caring for chil d

-- but Mother had used meth in Rose ’s presence and it was reasonable to conclude she would do so in front of K.R.]; In re Alexis E. , supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at 453 [jurisdictional finding affirmed where marijuana use was accompanied by irritability, short

- temperedness, and violence]; In re Destiny S. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 999, 1004 [court erred in finding jurisdiction when child had never seen Mother’s drug use , and only potential harm was from child occasionally smelling the resultant smoke].)19

multiple grounds for its assertion that a minor comes within the dependency court’s jurisdiction, a reviewing court can
af firm the juvenile court’s finding of jurisdiction over the minor if any one of the statutory bases for jurisdiction that are enumerated in the petition is supported by substantial evidence. In such a case, the reviewing court need not consider whether any or all of the other alleged statutory grounds for jurisdiction are supported by the evidence”] .) However, were we to consider th e argument, we would reject it. Mother does not deny that she did not protect K.R. from Father; she argues instead that insuf ficient evidence supported a finding that Father’s drug abuse placed K.R. at
risk , and thus the court erred in finding she failed to protect
K.R

. from a non

- existent danger

. As discussed below, we find the court did not err in finding K.R. at risk from
Fa ther’s drug abuse and t herefore substantial evidence supported the court’s decision to take jurisdiction under
counts b

- 2 and j

- 2 as well. 5

5 Mother additionally argues that “ [t] o meet its burden under [section 300,] subdivision (b)(1), the Department had to show neglectful conduct by mother” and contends DC FS failed in this task. Father makes the same argument. However, o ur Supreme Court has held that “ the first clause of section 300(b)(1) authorizes dependency jurisdiction without a finding that a parent is at fault or blameworthy for her failure or inabi lity to supervise or protect her child

. ” ( In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622

, 624 .)20 2. Father The court sustained the petition as to Father, also finding a long history of unaddressed substance abuse

. The court itself cited to the substantial evidence that supported this finding: Father was a registered drug offender ; his reunification services in his previous case were terminated ; he was in denial regarding his drug problem ; and though he
claim ed he hadn’t used drugs since 2014, Mother stated in
2016 that he “‘slam s meth

. ’” Rose saw him smoke it as well. Father does not deny the existence of this evidence.
As for evidence supporting that this history of unaddressed substance abuse placed K.R. at risk

, Father
also used methamphetamine in front of Rose, which support ed a finding that he would use in front of K.R. ( In re
Rocco M.

, supra , 1 Cal.App.4th at 825.) C oupled with his
denial of a drug problem and his lack of candor regarding
when he last used drugs , we conclude substantial evidence support ed a finding that Father’s drug abuse placed K.R. at risk. Further, Father also denied Mother had a drug problem, and did nothing to protect K.R. from Mother

, providing an independent basis for the jurisdictional finding

. Like Mother, Father cit es to evidence that might potentially support a finding that he was not a risk to K.R. As noted,
this constitutes an inappropriate request that we reweigh
the evidence. ( In re Joaquin C.

, supra , 15 Cal.App.5th at 560.)21 B. Substantial Evidence Support ed the Disposition The court’s dispositional order was supported by the same evidence that supported its jurisdictional order. On appeal, b oth parents contend the court erred in failing to
consider Mot her ’s attendance at drug treatment programs and both parents’ participation in “services

. ” Again, we do

not reweigh the evidence.
Father additionally argue s the court erred by not placing K.R. with Mother at her inpatient drug treatment

program. 6 According to Mother, the program commenced January 6, 2021

, and was to last six months. Thus, even had the court erred, the issue would likely be moot, as w e could not direct the court to place K.R. with Mother in a program she no longer attend s

. In any event, we discern no error. There was no evidence regarding what supervision, if any, Mother’s drug treatment program would have provided
K.R. Indeed

, there was no evidence Mother was even required to remain in the program. In short, n othing in the

r ecord compelled the juvenile court to find placing K.R. in Mother’s drug treatment facility would have safeguarded
him from harm.

6 Mother did not raise this argument, but did join in any argument in Father’s brief “ to the extent it inures to her benefit .”22 DISPOSITION
T he court’s order s are affirmed

. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL
REPORTS

MANELLA, P. J.

We concu r:

WILLHITE, J.

COLLINS, J.