Filed 8/15/23 In re L.J. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 the Matter of L.J. et al., 

Persons Coming Under 

Juvenile Court Law.

 B320979

 (Los Angeles County

LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. No. 21CCJP02835)

DEPARTMENT OF 

CHILDREN AND FAMILY 

SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

S.H.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Lisa A. Brackelmanns, Judge Pro Tempore. 

Affirmed.
2

Jesse Frederic Rodriguez, under appointment by the 

Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, and Navid Nakhjavani, Principal 

Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

________________________________________

S.H. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s orders 

sustaining a Welfare and Institutions Code section 342 

supplemental petition as to her children, L.J. (born March 

2015) and T.B. (born May 2018), and removing them from 

her custody.

1 We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The Original Dependency Action

L.J. and T.B. first came to the attention of the Los 

Angeles County Department of Children and Family 

Services (DCFS) in December 2020 due to concerns with

mother’s mental health and ongoing domestic violence 

between mother and T.B.’s father, Ta.B. (father).

2 Several 

months later, mother took T.B. to the hospital to report that 

she had seen the child place his finger and a pencil inside of 

his anus. In the presence of medical professionals, mother 

asked T.B. who had touched his anus; the child replied that 

1 Unspecified references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 

2 Father and Lawrence J., L.J.’s father, are not parties to this 

appeal. 
3

it was father’s girlfriend.3 Mother stated that the children 

were role-playing sexual acts they had witnessed between 

father and his girlfriend. 

During her initial interview in May 2021, mother 

reported that while she and father were separated, father 

occasionally visited the children at her home. During many 

of his visits with the children, father would engage in verbal 

and physical altercations with mother. L.J. had to intervene 

in one altercation to stop father from hitting mother with a 

wooden hanger. In another incident, father sprayed mother

with mace. Mother denied having a mental health history, 

declined a voluntary up front assessment, and refused to 

sign consent forms for her mental health service provider. 

L.J. denied being sexually abused or inappropriately 

touched in any way. T.B. was not fully verbal and could not 

provide a statement.

In his initial interview, father denied sexual and 

physical abuse and denied having a history of domestic 

violence with mother. Father contended that mother’s false 

allegations were “a pattern of concern” placing the children 

at risk of harm. Father’s girlfriend denied touching the 

children and noted that mother started exhibiting strange 

behavior in July 2020 after father moved out of her home. 

Paternal grandmother, Donna S., reported similar 

concerns for mother’s unresolved mental health issues, 

suspecting mother might be using methamphetamine and/or 

3 Medical reports later obtained by DCFS indicated a “[n]ormal 

external exam, [and] no lesions/findings noted.” 
4

having an ongoing mental health crisis. Over the past few 

months, mother told Donna S. that another person (also 

named Donna) was after the children, and she sent Donna S. 

inappropriate pictures and text messages suggesting father 

was gay. Following her interview, Donna S. called DCFS to 

report that San Bernardino County Child Protective Services 

(CPS) was at her home investigating concerns of child abuse

of her own children. Donna S. believed mother had 

contacted CPS in retaliation for Donna S.’s interview with 

DCFS. 

According to a police report, mother, fearing her 

neighbors had hacked into her computer to see the children’s 

genitals, called the police in January 2021. Officers who 

responded to mother’s home called in a referral to DCFS

questioning whether mother had undiagnosed 

schizophrenia.

4

On June 17, 2021, DCFS filed a non-detain petition on 

behalf of the children under section 300, based on the 

parents’ history of domestic violence and father’s abuse of 

alcohol. The court found a prima facie case under section 

300, and released the children to the home of parents. 

The court held a combined jurisdiction/disposition 

hearing on August 19, 2021. In a report filed the same day, 

DCFS reported that the children remained in the home of 

mother. During a follow-up interview, father reported that 

mother “coache[d] the children to say [false] things about 

4 Finding no additional evidence of ongoing incidents in mother’s 

home, DCFS disposed of the referral as unfounded. 
5

him.” Father stated that when mother has “temper 

tantrums,” she “blacks out” and “has hit him and stabbed 

him before.” Around 9:00 p.m. one evening, the children 

called father. When asked if mother was home, the children 

responded that maternal uncle Herbert H. was watching 

them. Previously, father had prohibited Herbert H. from 

watching the children because Herbert H. had mental health 

issues and was living in a halfway house. Father drove to 

mother’s home around 9:45 p.m. and cared for the children 

throughout the night. Mother returned home around 7:00 

a.m. appearing “‘[t]ired. Like a drug tired.’” As of the date 

of the jurisdiction/disposition hearing, both children were 

receiving therapy services.

At the hearing, the court sustained allegations of 

domestic violence and father’s alcohol abuse under section 

300, subdivision (b)(1),5 and issued a family maintenance 

case plan for both parents. Mother’s case plan included a 

family preservation program, mental health counseling, and 

individual counseling to address parenting, co-parenting, 

domestic violence, and mental health. The court also 

ordered the parties to confer on a written custody schedule. 

B. Family Maintenance Period

As reported in a March 2022 status review report, 

father was in compliance with his case plan and was 

showing “an awareness in protective factors.” Mother was 

5 The court dismissed domestic violence allegations under section 

300, subdivision (a).
6

noncompliant with her case plan. She refused family 

preservation and mental health services, reasoning that she 

had never been ordered to participate in mental health 

counseling. She also reported that her own treating 

therapist said she did not have any problems. Mother 

provided no documentation for her therapist, refused to call 

her medical provider to retrieve information from her 

therapy sessions, and refused to sign forms releasing her 

medical information to DCFS. 

Several times between December 2021 and February 

2022, mother vacillated between permanently surrendering 

T.B. to father’s care and withholding the child from custody 

exchanges with father. On January 17, 2022, mother stated,

“[Father] can keep [T.B.] I want to relinquish my rights. . . . 

I’ll see him when he is 18.” Two weeks later, mother refused 

to release T.B. to father, stating, “[Father and his girlfriend 

are] abusing my child and DCFS is not doing anything about 

it.” Two days later, mother reported that she had been hit 

by a car and said that father “‘can keep [T.B.]’” During 

another incident, mother “refused to receive [T.B.], when it 

[was] her turn to have the child return to her care, despite 

her concerns of physical and sexual abuse.” 

DCFS received an additional referral in February 2022

for general neglect. The reporting party stated that mother 

could be “diagnosed with Paranoid Schizophrenia and there 

is suspicion that the mother’s current state of mental health 

affects her ability to parent.” The day of the referral, mother 

informed DCFS that T.B. was returned to her care with 
7

scratch marks. Mother accused father’s girlfriend of 

physically abusing the child. The reporting party spoke with 

father, who replied that T.B. had no scratch marks on him 

before father exchanged the child with mother, as proven by 

pictures of the child taken before the exchange. Father also 

reported that his girlfriend did not live with him and was not 

allowed to touch T.B. pursuant to the ongoing dependency 

case. The reporting party questioned mother’s accusations 

and whether she had physically abused T.B. and “blam[ed] it 

on the father’s girlfriend.”

Another referral was generated following a custody 

exchange on March 4, 2022, at mother’s home. When father 

contacted mother to exchange T.B., mother refused to 

release the child to father. After a social worker and several 

police officers arrived at her home, mother screamed and 

cursed at them “while both children were looking out of the 

window crying and [appeared] sorely petrified, . . . .” Officers 

secured T.B. from the home and took the child down the 

street to father. The child jumped in father’s arms and 

smiled. 

During an unannounced visit at her home several days 

later, mother was asked about the incident. Mother yelled 

at the social worker, “Your supervisor came here and you let 

[T.B.] go to his father . . . even though he (the father) is 

licking my child’s anus.”6 Mother continued to yell at the 

6 T.B. told a social worker that father did not sexually abuse him. 

Medical records showed that mother had taken T.B. to be examined 

(Fn. is continued on the next page.)
8

social worker and recorded the social worker as she walked 

away. L.J. was present during the incident.

Father was “shock[ed]” at mother’s new allegations of 

sexual abuse. He stated that it was evident mother suffered 

from severe mental health problems. He also believed 

mother was trying to instill in T.B.’s head that father was

abusing him. Father produced two videos from mother 

asking the children leading questions about his alcohol use.7 

Father reported that mother “places the child, [T.B.], in the 

middle of her issues, which has an emotional effect on the 

child.” In light of the last incident and the current sexual 

abuse accusation, father believed T.B. needed therapy. 

Father agreed to follow through with any recommended 

services. 

On March 18, 2022, mother accused father and DCFS 

of kidnapping her son. In a text message to DCFS, mother 

stated, “I’m asking for an Amber Alert. Y’all [father and a 

social worker] kidnapped my son on Sheriff Department 

video cam.” At the time, DCFS was in the process of seeking 

a removal order. 

three separate times for sexual and physical abuse between April 2021 

and February 2022. No findings of abuse or trauma were noted. 

7 In both videos, mother asked the children questions “quickly and 

aggressively about the child(ren) witnessing the father drinking 

alcohol. They both answer[ed] that they did not see the father 

drinking, but the mother continue[d] to ask question[s] to get the 

answer she wanted, . . . . [T.B.] never mentioned the father 

drinking . . . but [L.J.] changed her answers to conform to mother’s 

leading questions.”
9

C. The Subsequent Petition

The court issued an order removing the children from 

mother’s care on April 1, 2022. In a section 342 petition filed 

a week later, DCFS alleged that mother’s history of mental 

and emotional problems placed the children at risk of serious 

harm. The petition alleged a failure to protect, willful or 

negligent failure to supervise, and an inability to provide 

regular care due to mental illness or substance abuse. 

In a detention report filed April 21, 2022, DCFS 

reported that mother refused to release L.J. to DCFS and 

law enforcement despite a removal warrant.

8 L.J. exhibited

disruptive behaviors in school and was disenrolled after 

being “chronically absent.” Mother refused to provide an 

explanation to the school for L.J.’s absences. While in 

daycare, T.B. hit other children before telling mother that he 

had been assaulted by another child. In one incident, T.B. 

told mother that a teacher had hit him. DCFS recommended 

referring both children for emotional and mental health 

needs. 

The court detained children from mother, ordered 

monitored visitation, and ordered mother to sign all waivers 

and releases for her medical records. The court set the 

8 When law enforcement presented mother with the removal 

order, she said L.J. was “not here.” A social worker informed mother 

that L.J. had been seen entering the home. In response, mother slid a

notarized letter under the front door that read, “I, [mother], give 

[maternal great aunt] Rhonda M[.] custody of [L.J.] . . . for support to 

get back on my feet.”
10

matter for a jurisdiction/disposition hearing on May 19, 

2022. 

D. Jurisdiction/Disposition Hearing on the 

Subsequent Petition

In a jurisdiction/disposition report filed on May 4, 

2022, DCFS reported that T.B. was living with father while 

L.J. was in foster care. Mother continued to deny having 

mental health issues despite a letter from her medical 

provider recommending additional psychotherapy. Mother 

continued to accuse father of sexual abuse but did “not mind 

if the minors ha[d] visits” with him. DCFS reported 

“extreme concern” for mother’s erratic and aggressive 

behaviors.

Following a psychological examination, an evaluator 

determined that T.B. would benefit from mental health 

services. “However, mother declined services at the time 

and therefore the minor was not linked.” L.J. had not been 

assessed for mental health services. 

DCFS further reported that mother had participated in 

three individual counseling sessions with her medical 

provider, but because mother reported that she was not a 

danger to herself or others in her sessions, she did not meet 

the criteria for mental health services through her provider. 

In a follow-up conversation, mother’s therapist stated that 

“her hands [were] tied,” as [she was] not a court mandated 

therapy provider.” DCFS continued to recommend a mental 

health assessment to determine mother’s ability to parent.
11

DCFS also reported that L.J. started fighting other 

children in her foster placement. In one incident, L.J. 

slapped another child in the face for no apparent reason. 

L.J. was uncontrollable at times and threatened to assault 

her caregivers. DCFS requested a mental health services 

order for L.J.

At the joint jurisdiction/disposition hearing on May 19, 

2022, mother argued there was no medical opinion on her

mental health or her ability to care for the children. 

Following argument of counsel, the court found by a 

preponderance of the evidence, “[Mother] displayed bizarre 

behavior, erratic and aggressive behavior, and I do think 

that her mental health issues are still ongoing, and it would 

be unsafe to return the children to her care at this time.” 

Taking into account the children’s tender age, the court 

found by clear and convincing evidence that it was necessary 

to remove them from mother’s care. The court considered a 

letter by mother’s therapist reporting on her completion of 

three therapy sessions but noted that the therapist did not 

have “all the documents and reports” to fully evaluate 

mother’s mental health. The court sustained the section 342 

petition, removed the children from mother’s custody, 

ordered family reunification services, monitored visitation, 

and a mental health evaluation (Evid. Code, § 730). Mother 

timely appealed. 
12

DISCUSSION

A. Governing Law

“In any case in which a minor has been found to be a 

person described by Section 300 and [DCFS] alleges new 

facts or circumstances, other than those under which the 

original petition was sustained, sufficient to state that the 

minor is a person described under Section 300, [DCFS] shall 

file a subsequent petition.” (§ 342, subd. (a).) “Unless 

otherwise provided by law, all procedures and hearings 

required for an original petition are applicable to a 

subsequent petition under this section.” (§ 342, subd. (b).) 

Those procedures include detention and jurisdiction and 

disposition hearings pursuant to section 300. (In re B.P.

(2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 886, 890.) 

At the trial court level, the burden of proof for 

jurisdictional findings is preponderance of the evidence; for 

removal it is clear and convincing evidence. (Cynthia D. v.

Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 242, 248.) We review both 

orders for substantial evidence. (In re D.B. (2018) 26 

Cal.App.5th 320, 328 (D.B.); In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 

773 (I.J.); see In re V.L. (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 147, 155 [for 

substantial evidence review of a disposition order, “the 

question before the appellate court is whether the record as 

a whole contains substantial evidence from which a 

reasonable factfinder could have found it highly probable 

that the fact was true”].) In construing the record, “‘“we 

draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support 

the findings and orders of the dependency court; . . . issues of 
13

fact and credibility are the province of the trial court.”’” 

(I.J., supra, at p. 773.) 

B. Jurisdictional Findings

Mother contends insufficient evidence supports the 

trial court’s findings that her mental illness posed a serious 

risk of harm to the children. We disagree.

Juvenile dependency proceedings are intended to 

protect children who are currently being abused or 

neglected, “and to ensure the safety, protection, and physical 

and emotional well-being of children who are at risk of that 

harm.” (§ 300.2, subd. (a).) As relevant here, section 300, 

subdivision (b)(1) authorizes a juvenile court to exercise 

jurisdiction over a child if it finds that the 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, or the inability of the parent 

to provide regular care for the child due to mental illness. 

(§ 300, subds. (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(D).) 

A jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision 

(b)(1) requires proof of three elements: “(1) the parent’s . . . 

neglectful conduct or failure or inability to protect the child; 

(2) causation; and (3) serious physical harm or illness or a 

substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness.” (In re

Cole L. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 591, 601 (Cole L.); see In re

Joaquin C. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 537, 561 [“section 300,

subdivision (b)(1) does not require that a parent commit
14

neglect or deserve blame . . . , only that an actual inability to

provide the necessary supervision or protection exists”].) For

jurisdiction to be appropriate, the substantial risk of serious 

physical harm or illness must exist at the time of the

jurisdictional hearing. (In re D.L. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 

1142, 1146.) 

The juvenile court in this case cited mother’s erratic 

and aggressive behavior as evidence of ongoing mental 

health issues that placed the children at risk of harm at the 

time of the jurisdiction hearing. Substantial evidence 

supports these findings. 

Several individuals voiced concern about mother’s 

mental health, including father, Donna S., social workers, 

and police officers. Mother made ongoing and unfounded 

allegations of sexual abuse against father both to DCFS and 

her own medical providers, yelled obscenities at social 

workers and law enforcement officers, coached the children 

to lie about allegations of sexual abuse, and restricted T.B.’s 

access to mental health services. Against court orders, 

mother did not adhere to her family maintenance case. She 

refused to participate in mental health services and 

stonewalled any attempts by DCFS to obtain her medical 

records. (Accord, In re G.C. (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 257, 265 

[jurisdictional findings upheld as based on unresolved 

mental health issues and failure to complete family 

maintenance case].)

Mother also expressed divergent intentions with 

respect to child custody. Several times during the family 
15

maintenance period, mother vacillated between withholding 

T.B. from father, whom she accused of sexual abuse, and 

completely relinquishing T.B. to father’s care. During a

custody exchange in March 2022, mother screamed

obscenities at law enforcement and a social worker while the 

children watched the incident “petrified.” On another 

occasion, mother left the children alone with a family 

relative known to have mental instability. From this 

behavior, we discern considerable uncertainty as to mother’s 

ability to provide regular and adequate care for both 

children. 

And though it is true that there was no finding that the 

children suffered physical harm from mother’s conduct, “the 

court need not wait until a child is seriously abused or 

injured to assume jurisdiction and take steps necessary to 

protect the child.” (In re Christopher R. (2014) 225 

Cal.App.4th 1210, 1216; accord, Cole L., supra, 70 

Cal.App.5th at pp. 601–602.) “It is not necessary for DCFS

or the juvenile court to precisely predict what harm will

come to [the children] because [m]other has failed to

consistently treat her illness. Rather, it is sufficient that

[m]other’s illness and choices create a substantial risk of

some serious physical harm or illness.” (In re Travis C.

(2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1219, 1226–1227.) Substantial 

evidence supports the court taking jurisdiction over the 

children.
16

C. Disposition Order

Mother makes similar arguments challenging the

court’s findings that removal of the children was necessary. 

Again, we disagree.

Before a child may be ordered physically removed from 

parental custody, the juvenile court must find by clear and 

convincing evidence that: (1) a substantial danger exists to 

“the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or 

emotional well-being of the minor if the minor were returned 

home [to the parent],” and (2) there are no reasonable means 

to protect the minor’s health without removing the minor 

from the parent’s physical custody. (§ 361, subd. (c)(1).) As 

mother herself concedes, the former inquiry is made as to 

the child’s physical and emotional health and well-being. 

(See In re H.E. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 710, 720 (H.E.) [“case 

law has long construed section 361 as allowing removal 

where ‘return of the child would create a substantial risk of 

detriment to the child’s physical or emotional well-being’”].) 

In determining whether a child may be safely maintained in 

a parent’s physical custody, the juvenile court may consider 

the parent’s past conduct, his or her response to the 

conditions that gave rise to juvenile court intervention, 

current circumstances, and any reasonable protective 

measures and services that can be implemented to prevent 

the child’s removal from parental custody. (D.B., supra, 26 

Cal.App.5th at p. 332.) 

Considering the children’s tender age, the trial court 

found clear and convincing evidence that mother’s behavior 
17

posed a substantial risk to the children’s health or emotional 

well-being if left in mother’s care. Substantial evidence 

supports this finding. 

The record reveals multiple instances in which 

mother’s behavior harmed the children’s safety and wellbeing. Between April 2021 and February 2022, mother took 

T.B. to the hospital to make unsubstantiated allegations of 

sexual abuse against father and his girlfriend, subjecting 

T.B. to repeated examination. Open, repeated, and

unfounded charges of sexual abuse against the other parent

are inappropriate and emotionally damaging to children. 

(H.E., supra, 169 Cal.App.4th at p. 724 [“[E]xposing young

children to constant tirades and accusations of such a

charged nature could only cause harm and do them no

good”].) Further, mother coached the children to lie about 

father’s use of alcohol and acted aggressively towards police 

officers and a social worker in their presence. 

Mother’s behavior had a manifest impact on the 

children. L.J. exhibited aggressive behavior and was 

disenrolled from school for being “chronically absent,” much 

to her detriment. T.B. also displayed aggressive behavior, 

and as of the date of disposition, a psychological assessment 

recommended further mental health services for T.B. 

However, mother declined such services, despite their 

potential benefit to T.B.’s emotional health. Thus, 
18

substantial evidence supports the court’s removal finding in 

this case. 9

DISPOSITION

The jurisdictional findings and disposition orders are 

affirmed. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

MORI, J.

We concur:

CURREY, P. J.

COLLINS, J.

9 Mother does not challenge the court’s finding that there were no 

reasonable means by which the children’s health could be protected 

without removing them from mother’s custody. (See § 361, subd. 

(c)(1).)