1

Filed 4/23/21 In re L.F. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

(Butte)

----

In re L. F., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court 

Law.

C092374

BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF 

EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

G. F.,

Defendant and Appellant.

(Super. Ct. No. 20DP00055)

G. F., mother of the minor (mother), appeals from the juvenile court’s disposition 

order removing the minor from her care and custody. (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 §§ 300, 395.) 

We affirm.

1

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

BACKGROUND

On February 25, 2020, sheriff’s deputies arrested Douglas (mother’s boyfriend) 

and charged him with making criminal threats. Mother reportedly left the seven-year-old 

minor with Douglas; however, the minor was not with Douglas at the time of his arrest 

because Douglas allowed the minor to stay with another man, Douglas’s former foster 

brother Anthony. Deputies became concerned when they could not reach mother, who 

was said to be working out of town. Deputies found the minor watching television at 

Anthony’s house. The minor was dressed in clean clothing but had dirt under her 

fingernails and toenails and knots in her hair. The minor told deputies she last saw her 

mother approximately one week ago and she last spoke with her mother by telephone the 

previous night. The minor did not know her birthdate and took some time to recall her 

last name. She told deputies she “goes to school on the computer but . . . is not smart 

because she can’t read.” 

Mother returned the social worker’s call the next day and reported she worked

“under the table” for a friend’s father who is a home inspector. She worked out of town 

and she left the minor with Douglas, whom she had known for 13 years, because she 

knew the minor would be safe with him. Mother stated she was married to Edouard but 

was currently going through a divorce. She reported she was hiding from Edouard, who 

had physically abused her in the past and threatened to kill her, and she had taken the 

minor out of elementary school because Edouard would wait outside the school and 

attempt to follow her home. The social worker asked mother for her address in order to 

assess mother’s home and the minor’s safety. Mother stated she was staying with 

Douglas and would use his address temporarily, but her plan was to move to Arizona 

with the maternal grandfather. 

On February 27, 2020, the Butte County Department of Employment and Social 

Services (Department) filed a dependency petition on behalf of the minor pursuant to 

section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g). The petition alleged mother left the minor with 
3

Douglas, who had been arrested and booked into the county jail. Despite numerous 

attempts, mother could not be reached and her whereabouts were unknown at the time the 

minor was detained. The petition also alleged the minor’s father was incarcerated.2 

The detention report noted there was a substantial danger to the health and wellbeing of the minor given that mother left the minor for extended periods of time and the 

Department had been unable to assess the minor’s living environment or her caretaker. 

The minor had not been enrolled in school since December 2018, she was unable to read 

or write, and she was having problems with her vision. The Department recommended 

that the court detain the minor and order out-of-home placement, noting its concern that 

mother might flee the court’s jurisdiction. 

At the detention hearing, mother confirmed a mailing address in Oroville and was 

advised to keep the court and the Department apprised of her current mailing address. 

Mother told the court she was working out of town for a friend “under the table,” and that 

she was unavailable when the deputies were trying to reach her because her phone was 

broken. Mother stated the minor participated in school online because mother’s exhusband Edouard threatened her and waited outside the minor’s school and followed 

mother home. Mother claimed she spent four hours a day helping the minor do her 

homework and, when mother was out of town, Douglas was supposed to do homework 

with the minor. The court ordered interim detention pending a contested hearing. The 

court further ordered mother to drug test immediately and that the Department inspect 

mother’s home. 

During the contested detention hearing on March 3, 2020, following testimony 

from social worker Jennifer Din, mother’s counsel informed the court that the parties 

2 The petition was later amended to correct the spelling of the alleged father’s name

and Douglas’s street address, and amended again to reflect that, at the time of detention, 

the alleged father’s identity and whereabouts were unknown.
4

reached a tentative agreement on releasing the minor back to mother. Counsel stated 

mother was working on housing and would be staying in a hotel paid for by the maternal 

grandfather and the Department would make a referral for housing assistance. The court 

stated it wanted mother to drug test and counsel confirmed mother’s willingness to do so. 

The court asked mother, “Is it going to be clean?” Mother responded, “Yes.” The court 

then asked, “So mother, I need to know from you the absolute truth.” Mother responded, 

“It will be clean.” The court explained, “If there’s anything that’s going to show up; any 

alcohol, or any marijuana, or anything else, now is the time for you to tell us, because I’m 

going to order you to give a test right now, and if you can’t produce a sample or the 

sample is dirty for anything, they’re not going to release this detention. [¶] So it’s going 

to be clean?” Mother responded, “Yes, ma’am.” 

During a court recess, mother drug tested as instructed. She produced a small 

sample that was presumptively positive for methamphetamine and morphine. Mother 

stated she did not believe the test was correct and claimed she might have tested positive 

because Douglas’s friends were trying to get her out of the house and might have slipped 

something into her drink. Mother stated she would return later in the day and attempt to 

produce a larger sample. In the meantime, the court ordered the minor detained and 

ordered mother to abstain from use of alcohol, marijuana, and other drugs. Mother did 

not return to provide another sample. When mother’s previous sample was sent to the lab 

for confirmation, the results were positive for morphine and showed that amphetamines 

were detected but the sample size was insufficient to confirm methamphetamine. 

The jurisdiction hearing was continued from March to April 2020 due to the 

Covid-19 pandemic. At the April 8, 2020, continued hearing, the Department reported 

that mother failed to appear by telephone for a scheduled child family team (team) 

meeting and failed to participate in online parent engagement counseling classes despite 

having been referred to those classes. Mother was, however, participating in telephone 

visits with the minor. The court encouraged mother to contact her social worker and take 
5

advantage of any services available to her and continued the hearing. The matter was 

briefly recalled, at which time the parties submitted on jurisdiction. Mother’s counsel 

informed the court that mother was homeless and was living outside the county. The 

court sustained the petition, adjudging the minor a dependent of the juvenile court. 

The disposition report recommended the court continue the minor’s out-of-home 

placement, order that reunification services be provided to mother and that she comply 

with her case plan, and bypass father for services pursuant to section 361.5, 

subdivision (a). Father reported he had been released from prison in October 2019 and 

was on probation. Mother reportedly missed appointments and meetings and had not 

made herself available to the social worker. She claimed to have hired a private attorney 

and stated she would not be discussing her needs or the components of her case plan on 

the advice of her attorney. The report concluded the minor could not safely be returned 

to mother’s care as mother did not have stable housing, had not begun to participate in 

parent engagement classes, remained difficult to contact, and had not had a drug and 

alcohol assessment. 

An addendum report filed July 8, 2020, recommended the court find father to be 

the presumed father of the minor and that both parents be provided with reunification 

services and ordered to comply with their respective case plans. Father participated in a 

team meeting on June 22, 2020. Mother continued to have limited contact with the 

Department and rarely responded to the social worker’s texts and phone calls. She had 

been slow to participate in services and was in danger of being dropped for the third time 

from her parent engagement classes. The social worker referred mother to Stepping 

Stones, an alcohol and drug treatment program, several times but mother failed to contact 

the provider or complete an assessment. Mother told the social worker that she 

purchased land in Oroville from Douglas and would be purchasing a travel trailer “ ‘any 

day now’ ” to place on the property. The social worker informed mother that any 

residence would require an assessment to determine if it was suitable to return the minor 
6

to mother’s care. Mother did not respond to a subsequent text from the social worker 

about the status of mother’s living situation. 

The addendum report noted mother’s prior arrest, on July 14, 2019, for possession 

of heroin, a glass pipe, and a scale. Mother’s case was pending in the Tehama Superior

Court. Given that prior arrest and mother’s positive test for morphine on March 3, 2020, 

the Department had concerns about mother’s possible substance abuse issues and the 

social worker texted mother referring her to drug test on June 2, 2020 and July 3, 2020. 

Mother’s retained attorney responded to the text and asked whether there was an 

allegation of drug use in the petition and a court order for drug testing. Mother did not 

acknowledge the texts and did not appear for drug testing. While mother did not 

participate in case planning with the Department, the Department created an updated case 

plan for her. The Department again recommended that the court find father to be the 

minor’s presumed father, order continued out-of-home placement for the minor, and 

order reunification services for both parents. 

After several continuances, the contested disposition hearing commenced on 

July 14, 2020. The court took judicial notice of the Department’s reports and heard 

testimony from several witnesses. 

A

Testimony Of Social Worker Inga Reeder

Social worker Inga Reeder testified she began working as a social worker in Butte 

County in February 2020. Reeder recommended the court order the minor’s continued 

out-of-home placement because she had been unable to ascertain where mother lived or 

assess mother’s home for safety. Reeder also had concerns about mother’s possible 

substance abuse based on the information she had, and it was her belief that if someone 

were using illegal substances he or she could not adequately care for a child. She worked 

closely with her supervisor, who told her to make the recommendation of suitable 

placement due to the inability to assess mother’s home for safety and concerns about 
7

mother’s potential drug use. Reeder also testified that mother stated she was living 

outside the county and staying in motels, but Reeder was unable to assess mother’s living 

situation because mother did not identify the motels or provide Reeder with an address. 

Reeder stated she did not believe mother was a danger to the minor, but Reeder had not 

yet been able to assess mother. 

Reeder communicated with mother several times a month, but mother did not 

often respond to her texts or telephone calls. Reeder testified she attempted several times 

to make an appointment with mother to go over the case plan but was unable to do so. 

Mother was not present for the first team meeting when the minor’s educational and 

medical needs were discussed, namely, that the minor was not able to read or write and 

needed eyeglasses. Reeder met mother in person once when mother signed the 

paperwork for in-person visits, but Reeder was unable to get a family history from 

mother or complete an assessment at that time. Mother did not make herself available for 

meetings or provide a list of any prescription medications as requested. 

Reeder testified she considered other alternatives to suitable placement such as 

placement with relatives and family friends and referral of services such as parent 

engagement counseling and a nurturing parent program. So far, mother had attended 

three out of eight parent engagement counseling sessions and had to be re-referred due to 

failure to attend. Reeder provided mother with literature on housing assistance to help 

her find suitable housing. Reeder also referred mother to Stepping Stones for an alcohol 

and drug assessment because she had concerns about mother’s potential drug use based 

on mother’s arrest in Tehama County for possession of heroin in July 2019 and her 

positive test for morphine and opiates in March 2020. Reeder checked the court records 

in mother’s Tehama County case and found mother had a warrant for her arrest for failure 

to appear. Mother had been asked by another social worker to drug test three times but 

only tested once. Reeder asked mother to drug test two times but mother did not test as 

requested. Reeder asked mother if she had a prescription for opiates, but mother did not 
8

provide a response. She felt it was important for mother to drug test in order to determine 

if she had any issues with substance abuse. Reeder testified she did not consider 

returning the minor to mother under a plan of family maintenance because she could not 

ascertain where mother was living. 

Reeder testified that mother had been participating in regular telephonic and inperson visitation with the minor. However, mother missed the two most recent in-person 

visits arranged by Reeder. 

With regard to the minor, Reeder testified the minor was enrolled in kindergarten 

from October to December 2018 but her educational records were not forwarded to 

another school thereafter. Mother told Reeder the minor was enrolled in an online school 

called Time for Learning. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the minor continued to do 

online classes while in foster care. She had an online tutor because she had difficulty 

focusing on the online format and became easily distracted. 

B

Testimony Of Social Worker Jennifer Din

Social worker Jennifer Din testified she was the initial detaining social worker on 

the case. Din detained the minor based on the opinions of the detaining deputy and Din’s

supervisor that the person the minor was left with (Douglas) had been arrested and the 

person Douglas left the minor with (Anthony), who stated he only met the minor “ ‘a day 

or two prior,’ ” did not have any legal authority to make decisions or arrangements for 

the minor. Din testified that both she and law enforcement officers attempted to contact 

mother without success. Mother finally called Din back the following morning and stated 

she was in Southern California. Due to mother’s previous referral regarding possession 

of heroin, and the fact that mother left the minor with Douglas, Din asked mother to meet 

in person and drug test before court. Din noted that, while mother was not required to 

drug test, the information from the test would have helped with Din’s assessment. She 

further noted that, while mother’s decision not to test would not be used against her, it 
9

would mean the detention hearing would go forward in order to obtain the court’s input 

on the matter. Din testified an allegation regarding mother’s drug use was not included in 

the petition because there was no “hard evidence” or “concrete information” to support it. 

Din first met mother in person on February 28, 2020, at the detention hearing in 

court. The plan was to do an assessment after mother drug tested and provided Din with 

her address. The address mother provided was Douglas’s address in Oroville; however, 

Din was informed that mother was not allowed to live there. 

Din testified that, when she detained the minor, the minor said, “Oh, I’m dumb 

because I don’t know how to read.” Din learned the minor attended kindergarten only 

several months before being taken out of school in December 2019. Thereafter, the 

minor was not enrolled in school until the time the foster parents placed her in a learning 

program in March 2020. 

The court found there was clear and convincing evidence of a substantial danger to 

the minor if returned to mother’s care and custody and no reasonable means to protect the 

minor short of removal. The court ordered continued out-of-home placement for the 

minor and visitation and reunification services to both parents. 

DISCUSSION

Mother contends the juvenile court erred in removing the minor from her care and 

custody because there was insufficient evidence of a substantial danger to the minor if 

she remained in mother’s care and the court failed to consider other reasonable means to 

protect the minor without removal. The claims lack merit.

To support an order removing a child from parental custody, the court must find 

clear and convincing evidence “[t]here is or would be a substantial danger to the physical 

health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor if the minor 

were returned home, and there are no reasonable means by which the minor’s physical 

health can be protected without removing the minor from the minor’s parent’s . . . 

physical custody.” (§ 361, subd. (c)(1); see In re Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 
10

193; In re T.W. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163.) The court also must “make a 

determination as to whether reasonable efforts were made to prevent or to eliminate the 

need for removal of the minor” and “state the facts on which the decision to remove the 

minor is based.” (§ 361, subd. (e).)

When reviewing removal findings, “ ‘[w]e review the record in the light most 

favorable to the trial court’s order to determine whether there is substantial evidence from 

which a reasonable trier of fact could make the necessary findings based on the clear and 

convincing evidence standard.’ ” (T.J. v. Superior Court (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 1229, 

1239-1240; see Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1004-1005.)

“A removal order is proper if it is based on proof of (1) parental inability to 

provide proper care for the minor and (2) potential detriment to the minor if he or she 

remains with the parent. [Citation.] The parent need not be dangerous and the minor 

need not have been harmed before removal is appropriate. The focus of the statute is on 

averting harm to the child.” (In re T.W., supra, 214 Cal.App.4th at p. 1163.)

Here, there was sufficient evidence to support the court’s removal order. The 

record makes plain that mother left the seven-year-old minor with Douglas while she 

went to work in another county. Douglas then left the minor with his former foster 

brother, Anthony, who had only met the minor two or three days prior. When Douglas 

was arrested for making criminal threats, sheriff’s deputies and the social worker were 

unable to reach mother by telephone despite numerous attempts. Mother eventually 

returned the social worker’s call the following morning, but thereafter did little if 

anything to demonstrate her ability to adequately care for the minor or assist the 

Department in ascertaining whether it was safe to return the minor to her care. For 

example, mother failed or refused to provide an address so that her living space could be 

assessed for safety issues, simply telling the social worker she was staying in motels. She 

did not maintain consistent communication with the social worker, return texts or 

telephone calls, provide a family history, discuss case planning, make herself available 
11

for meetings, or provide a list of her prescription medications. There were also concerns 

that mother may be using illegal substances based on a pending case in Tehama County 

regarding mother’s July 14, 2019, arrest for possession of heroin, a glass pipe, and a 

scale; mother’s March 2020 positive test for morphine and opiates; and the fact that 

mother refused to drug test. In view of these facts, there was sufficient evidence in the 

record to support the court’s removal order.

Mother claims the minor was in no danger when she left the child with Douglas, 

whom she had known for some time and who had no criminal history or evidence of 

mental illness. We are not persuaded. Mother left the minor with Douglas, who had no

legal authority to make decisions about care for the minor, but Douglas then left the 

minor with Anthony, who lived some distance away, had only just met the minor, and 

had no legal authority to care for or make decisions for the minor if necessary or in the 

event of an emergency. Indeed, Anthony reported he attempted to reach mother by text 

but did not hear back. Further, Douglas was arrested for criminal threats and taken into 

custody, preventing him from caring for the minor even if she had been in his care.

Mother argues there was insufficient evidence for removal because there were no 

drug use allegations in the petition, her drug test came back positive “for morphine only” 

and was negative for methamphetamine, and the Department had no concrete evidence of 

her drug use. We disagree. The fact that there were no substance abuse allegations in the 

petition is not dispositive of whether the issue of potential drug use can be considered 

when determining whether removal is appropriate. As a preliminary matter, the social 

worker testified the decision to recommend removal was based on mother’s refusal to 

provide the Department with specific information about where she was living, preventing 

the social worker from assessing mother’s living space for safety; as well as concerns

about mother’s potential drug use, based on the pending Tehama County case for 

possession of heroin, a glass pipe, and a scale; mother’s positive test for morphine and 

opiates; and the fact that mother refused to drug test. 
12

Mother further argues the juvenile court failed to consider reasonable means to 

protect the minor without removal. She claims the Department did nothing to assist her 

in finding appropriate housing, failed to assess the condition of Douglas’s home, and 

could easily have conducted unannounced visits once she was in stable housing. The 

claims are untenable.

Mother initially told the social worker and the court that she was staying with 

Douglas and would use his address temporarily, but her plan was to move to Arizona. At 

the detention hearing on March 3, 2020, the parties reached a tentative agreement to 

release the minor back to mother based on representations that mother was working on 

housing and would be staying temporarily in a hotel room paid for by the maternal 

grandfather, and the Department would be making a referral for housing assistance. The 

agreement was contingent upon mother’s clean drug test. However, mother tested

presumptively positive for morphine and methamphetamine, and lab tests confirmed her 

test was positive for morphine and opiates and the court ordered the minor detained. 

Thereafter, efforts to assist mother in finding housing and assess that housing for 

suitability were fruitless. In April 2020, mother was homeless and living outside the 

county. Social worker Reeder testified she provided mother with literature on housing 

assistance to help her find suitable housing. Mother continued to have limited contact 

with the Department and rarely responded to the social worker’s texts and phone calls. 

She finally met with the social worker in person on June 26, 2020, and reported she had 

purchased land from Douglas and would be buying a travel trailer to place on the 

property. The social worker advised mother that any residence would require assessment 

to determine suitability for the minor. However, when she texted mother on July 2, 2020,

to ask about the status of her living situation, mother did not respond. Mother’s inability 

or unwillingness to communicate with the Department or provide information as to her 

whereabouts throughout the proceedings made it impossible to assist her in finding 

stable, suitable housing.
13

We conclude the evidence was sufficient to support the court’s order removing the 

minor from mother’s care and custody.

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s orders are affirmed.

/s/ 

Robie, Acting P. J.

We concur:

/s/ 

Hoch, J.

/s/ 

Renner, J.