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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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.

 B312026

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No.

 17CCJP00213B)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

REYNA S. and JAMIE R.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Jean M. Nelson, Judge. Affirmed.
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 

Appeal, 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 November 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., alleging 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, they 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 place 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 September 

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 controlled substance. Father’s criminal 

history included arrests for possession of controlled 

substance paraphernalia, two arrests for possession of 

narcotic controlled substances, two arrests for being under 

the influence of a controlled substance, an arrest for bringing 

a controlled substance into prison, and more than nine 
4

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 court 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 children. 

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 engaged 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 children 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 Rose 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 identified 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 because 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 Mother was 

very guarded and refused to provide any information. She 

denied abusing substances, but refused any tests for both the 

baby and herself, and wanted to leave the hospital as soon as 

possible. Ariel was detained; the court eventually 

terminated Mother’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 would 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 referral 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 treatment 

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 surname was R. 

(Father’s last name), but her California ID listed her 

surname as S. (her maiden name). Mother offered to stay at 

the site while the CSW corrected 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 receiving 
7

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 needles 

along with her mother-in-law’s medicine in her car. Mother 

explained that although 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 other 

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 had 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 Mother, that 

they were the parents of Alan and K.R., and that he was a 

tattoo artist currently working in Arizona, with intentions to 

open his own business in Georgia. He expressed no concerns 

with Mother caring for K.R., claiming neither he nor Mother 
8

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 completion 

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 for 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 Father were temporarily living with an aunt until they 

found their own place, that K.R. was dressed appropriately
9

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 caring 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 registered controlled substance offender 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., contending 
10

DCFS had not met its burden. The court disagreed, and 

ordered K.R. detained. He was transported from Georgia to 

California and placed in the 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 graduating 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 allegations 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 because 

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 results 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. Father claimed the 

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 domestic violence class, 

had asked a friend to come pick her up to remove her from 

the situation and avoid escalating the argument. However, 

this friend was the person who had introduced Mother 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 discussing 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 being 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 certificate of completion was 

pending, she now said she had been ten days away from 

completing it when she 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 

investigated 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., injects it intravenously). 

During 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 advocating that the 

parents could “never redeem 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 detained 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 equivalent 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 abuse. DCFS’s counsel also pointed out that K.R. 
14

was too young to verbalize any problems 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 fully 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 

programs, and the fact that she had yet to complete a drug 

treatment program and maintain a period 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. 

Continuing 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 informing the court 

that Mother was in an inpatient drug treatment program 

that would permit K.R. to reside with her. Father’s counsel 

joined, noting that Father was attending Narcotics 

Anonymous and Alcoholics Anonymous 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 counsel stated that “although the 
15

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 credibility 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 and 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 sufficient to support 

the trial court’s findings.” (In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 

Cal.App.4th 438, 451.)
16

A. Substantial Evidence Supported the 

Jurisdictional Findings

1. Mother

Citing Mother’s long history of substance abuse and 

insufficient evidence that she had fully addressed the issue, 

the court sustained the petition against Mother under 

section 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. In 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. Finally -- and only after her 

counselor encouraged her to be honest -- Mother expressly 

admitted she had a “‘problem’” and was “‘working on it.’” 

Substantial evidence supported 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 “by 
17

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 psychological 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 

difficulties.” (In re Rocco M. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 814, 825.) 

Here, Mother admitted to precipitously leaving her monthsold infant for two days so she could use methamphetamine. 

Additionally, Mother constantly left her drug paraphernalia 

where Rose found it, 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.)

Moreover, Mother had yet to fully address her drug 

abuse problem and, with one exception, consistently denied 

having a drug problem. The 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. “One 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 unreasonable to infer a nexus between the physical 

abuse and Mother’s drug abuse. Additionally, Mother
18

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 placed 

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 

child -- 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 

affirm 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 the argument, we would reject 

it. Mother does not deny that she did not protect K.R. from 

Father; she argues instead that insufficient 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 

Father’s drug abuse and therefore 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 DCFS failed in this 

task. Father makes the same argument. However, our 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 inability 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 

claimed he hadn’t used drugs since 2014, Mother stated in 

2016 that he “‘slams 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 

supported a finding that he would use in front of K.R. (In re 

Rocco M., supra, 1 Cal.App.4th at 825.) Coupled with his 

denial of a drug problem and his lack of candor regarding

when he last used drugs, we conclude substantial evidence 

supported 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 cites 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 Supported the 

Disposition

The court’s dispositional order was supported by the 

same evidence that supported its jurisdictional order. On 

appeal, both parents contend the court erred in failing to 

consider Mother’s attendance at drug treatment programs

and both parents’ participation in “services.” Again, we do 

not reweigh the evidence.

Father additionally argues 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 we could 

not direct the court to place K.R. with Mother in a program 

she no longer attends. 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, nothing in the 

record 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

The court’s orders are affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL

REPORTS

MANELLA, P. J.

We concur:

WILLHITE, J.

COLLINS, J.