Filed 12/18/14 In re R.V. CA5 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re R.V. et al., Persons Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law. 

FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF 

SOCIAL SERVICES, 

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

VERONICA C., 

Defendant and Appellant. 

F069301 

(Super. Ct. Nos. 14CEJ30045-1, 

14CEJ30045-2, 14CEJ30045-3) 

OPINION

THE COURT* 

 APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Mary Dolas, 

Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) 

 Jennifer Gibson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant. 

 Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Amy K. Cobb, Deputy County 

Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

-ooOoo- 

 

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Cornell, J. and Detjen, J. 
2 

 Appellant Veronica C. is the mother of two sons, 12-year-old R.V. and three-yearold A.V., and a daughter, nine-month-old D.R., the subjects of this appeal. The juvenile 

court adjudged the children its dependents at an uncontested jurisdictional hearing after 

finding that Veronica’s methamphetamine abuse placed them at a substantial risk of 

harm. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b).)1 Veronica contends there was insufficient 

evidence to support the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding and asks this court to vacate 

the finding and direct the juvenile court to dismiss the dependency proceedings. We 

affirm. 

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY 

 In mid-February 2014, the Fresno County Department of Social Services 

(department) filed a dependency petition on behalf of then 11-year-old R.V., two-yearold A.V., and newborn D.R., after D.R. and Veronica tested positive for 

methamphetamine. D.R. was not Veronica’s first drug-exposed baby. In September 

2011, Veronica and newborn A.V. tested positive for methamphetamine. 

 Veronica identified her husband David R. as D.R.’s father and Rickey V. as the 

father of R.V. and A.V. She said David was employed and denied any domestic violence 

in their relationship. She also denied using corporal punishment to discipline the 

children. 

 Veronica’s criminal history consisted of one conviction in January 2011 for 

possession of a controlled substance for which she was sentenced to 24 months of 

probation. David’s criminal history was more extensive but, according to Veronica, he 

was on parole and doing well. He was not using drugs and was not aware she was using 

methamphetamine. She admitted using methamphetamine in early February 2014, but 

 

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless 

otherwise indicated. 
3 

said David and the children were not home at the time. Prior to that, she had not used 

methamphetamine since she was four months pregnant with D.R. 

 A social worker met with R.V. at his maternal grandmother’s home. He was welldressed and well-groomed. He denied being physically punished and said Veronica 

punished him by sending him to his room. He said there was no arguing or fighting in 

the home and that his mother took good care of him. He said he always had food to eat 

and clean clothes to wear. He did not know what drugs or alcohol looked like and had 

not seen anyone in the home that he thought was using drugs. He said he felt safe at 

home and there was nothing that needed to change to make him feel safer. 

 David’s probation officer told the social worker that David had a history of drug 

use. He completed substance abuse treatment in October 2013 and was testing negative 

for drugs. He was aware that David worked long hours and was rarely home. He said the 

children were “very good kids” and that David’s parents were very involved with the 

children. 

 Social workers met with David at the family home. He was surprised and upset to 

find out that Veronica had been using drugs. He said he worked from 6:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. 

or later and did not suspect that Veronica was using drugs. The social workers observed 

the home to be “well above minimal standards.” It was very clean and organized and 

there was plenty of food. In addition, David and Veronica had purchased furniture, 

clothes and supplies for the baby. 

 After conducting their interviews, the social workers met with Veronica, David, 

and various relatives, including David’s parents and Veronica’s mother, to discuss a plan 

for the children. Veronica and David agreed to participate in voluntary family 

maintenance services and the department agreed to allow D.R. to be discharged to 

Veronica and David’s custody as long as they lived with David’s parents. The 

department also agreed that R.V. could remain with his maternal grandmother and A.V. 

could remain with his paternal grandmother. 
4 

 The department filed a dependency petition, alleging under section 300, 

subdivision (b), that the children had suffered, or were at substantial risk of suffering, 

serious physical harm or illness because Veronica “has a history of substance abuse 

(methamphetamine) that negatively affects her ability to provide regular care, supervision 

and protection for her children.” In support of this allegation, the department cited D.R. 

and A.V.’s positive toxicology for methamphetamine at birth, Veronica’s disclosure that 

she used methamphetamine on or about February 2, 2014, and February 7, 2014, and her 

completion of voluntary maintenance services in April 2012. The voluntary maintenance 

services Veronica completed in April 2012 included three months of inpatient substance 

abuse treatment and four months of aftercare, parenting classes, and counseling. 

 Shortly after the petition was filed, Veronica and David relocated to the home of 

David’s parents with all three children. In its report for the initial hearing, the department 

recommended the juvenile court detain the children but leave them in Veronica and 

David’s care. The department believed it was in the children’s best interest to remain 

with their parents because Veronica previously completed drug treatment and parenting, 

David was employed and doing well on parole, they had strong family support, the 

children appeared well cared for, and the home was above minimum standards. 

 In addition, the department reported that the family had two prior child welfare 

referrals. The first was received in January 2007, alleging R.V. went to school with a 

scratch on his left cheek and disclosed that his father, Rickey, bit him. The department 

investigated but found no evidence of general neglect. The other referral was received in 

September 2011, after A.V. was born drug-exposed and Veronica reportedly fell asleep 

while feeding him a bottle and allowed him to drop onto the floor. He was observed for 

24 hours and determined to be unharmed. After speaking to Veronica, Rickey, and the 

children’s grandparents, who agreed to be a support for the parents, the department 

offered Veronica and Rickey voluntary family maintenance services. 
5 

 At the initial hearing, the juvenile court ordered the children detained but allowed 

them to remain in Veronica and David’s custody. The juvenile court ordered the 

department to refer Veronica for parenting classes, substance abuse and mental health 

evaluations, and random drug testing. The court also ordered the department to offer 

David parenting classes and a mental health evaluation, and a mental health evaluation 

for Rickey. 

 By the jurisdictional hearing, Veronica completed a substance abuse evaluation 

and was testing negative for drugs. She told the substance abuse evaluator that she had 

been using methamphetamine since the age of 16, approximately 17 years. She remained 

abstinent from September 2011, until she relapsed in December 2013. She subsequently 

used methamphetamine six or seven times until D.R.’s birth in early February 2014. The 

evaluator believed Veronica may have minimized her drug use but not significantly and 

recommended she participate in intensive outpatient treatment. 

 In its report for the jurisdictional hearing, the department recommended the 

juvenile court sustain the petition and allow the children to remain with Veronica and 

David under family maintenance services. The department believed Veronica and 

David’s willingness to participate in services and their strong family support system 

rendered their home safe for the children. 

 In April 2014, Veronica appeared at the jurisdictional hearing and submitted the 

matter for decision based on the allegations in the petition and the information contained 

in the department’s jurisdictional/dispositional report. The juvenile court found the 

allegation in the petition was true and the children came within the description of section 

300, subdivision (b). The court ordered family maintenance services and set a family 

maintenance review hearing for October 2014. The court ordered visitation for Rickey. 

 This appeal ensued. 
6 

DISCUSSION 

Veronica contends the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding must be reversed 

because there was insufficient evidence at the time of the jurisdictional hearing that her 

drug use placed the children at a substantial risk of harm. We disagree. 

 The juvenile court may adjudge a child a dependent under section 300, subdivision 

(b) when “[t]he child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, 

serious physical harm or illness, as a result of the failure or inability of his or her parent 

... to provide regular care for the child due to the parent’s ... substance abuse.” (§ 300, 

subd. (b).) 

 “Although section 300 generally requires proof the child is subject to the defined 

risk of harm at the time of the jurisdictional hearing [citations], the court need not wait 

until a child is seriously abused or injured to assume jurisdiction and take steps necessary 

to protect the child. [Citation]. The court may consider past events in deciding whether a 

child presently needs the court’s protection. [Citation.] A parent’s ‘“[p]ast conduct may 

be probative of current conditions” if there is reason to believe that the conduct will 

continue.’” (In re Christopher R. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1215-1216 (Christopher 

R.).) “In addition, the Legislature has declared, ‘The provision of a home environment 

free from the negative effects of substance abuse is a necessary condition for the safety, 

protection and physical and emotional well-being of the child.’” (Id. at p. 1216.) 

 We review the juvenile court’s finding under section 300 for substantial evidence. 

(In re Matthew S. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1311, 1319.) “Under this standard ‘[w]e review 

the record to determine whether there is any substantial evidence to support the juvenile 

court’s conclusions, and we resolve all conflicts and make all reasonable inferences from 

the evidence to uphold the court’s orders, if possible.’” (Christopher R., supra, 225 

Cal.App.4th at p. 1216.) “The appellant has the burden of showing there is no evidence 

of a sufficiently substantial nature to support the findings or order.” (In re T.V. (2013) 

217 Cal.App.4th 126, 133 (T.V.).) 
7 

 Interestingly, Veronica ignores the fact that the juvenile court found she abused 

methamphetamine and contends section 300, subdivision (b) does not apply because her 

“drug history” did not harm the children. The finding, however, that Veronica abused

methamphetamine was foundational to the ultimate finding under subdivision (b) and is 

supported by the evidence. Veronica had been using methamphetamine for half of her 

life and had only a brief period of abstinence within the three years prior to the children’s 

initial removal. Further, during those three years, she delivered two drug-exposed babies 

approximately two and one-half years apart and was convicted of possessing a controlled 

substance. On that evidence, the juvenile court could reasonably find that Veronica‘s 

methamphetamine use was active, ongoing, and constituted substance abuse. 

 Further, the juvenile court could reasonably find that Veronica’s 

methamphetamine abuse placed the children at a substantial risk of harm. As to D.R., the 

juvenile court could find a presumptive risk based on Veronica’s act of exposing D.R. to 

methamphetamine in utero. (In re Monique T. (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1372, 1378, [child 

born with dangerous drugs in the body is legally presumed to be a child described by 

section 300, subdivision (b)].) Further, the juvenile court could find that Veronica’s 

history of methamphetamine abuse and high risk of relapse placed all the children at risk 

of harm. Her high risk of relapse is evidenced by her failure to seek help after relapsing 

in December 2013. She knew she was pregnant and should have known by virtue of her 

prior drug treatment where to turn. Instead, she continued to use and undoubtedly would 

have continued to do so had her methamphetamine abuse not been discovered during 

D.R.’s delivery. 

 Veronica nevertheless contends there was insufficient evidence that the children 

were at risk of harm at the time of the jurisdictional hearing because she was then testing 

negative for drugs and the evidence showed that she and David took good care of the 

children. Though true, such evidence in this case is not compelling. Veronica’s brief 

demonstration of abstinence in light of her years of methamphetamine abuse did not 
8 

mean she had achieved recovery. Further, the harmful effects of methamphetamine abuse 

on children are well known. The fact that the children did not appear to be experiencing 

them at the time of the jurisdictional hearing does not mean that they were not at risk and 

none of the cases Veronica cites persuade us otherwise. In assessing risk to a child, the 

juvenile court is not confined to a snapshot in time and it does not have to wait until a 

child is “‘seriously abused or injured to assume jurisdiction and take the steps necessary 

to protect the child.’ [Citations.] The focus of section 300 is on averting harm to the 

child.” (T.V., supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at p. 133.) 

We also reject Veronica’s contention that the department’s decision to place the 

children with her demonstrates that there was not a substantial risk that they would suffer 

serious harm in her care. The department’s decision to place the children in her care and 

the juvenile court’s decision to assume jurisdiction are based on different considerations. 

The court’s decision means that Veronica’s drug abuse posed sufficient risk to warrant its 

intervention and oversight over the family situation until it was safe to withdraw. It also 

allowed the court to provide the family services and departmental assistance. The 

department’s placement of the children in Veronica’s custody means that the risk 

Veronica posed was not so great that the children could not be made safe in the home 

with protective measures. 

 In light of the foregoing, we conclude substantial evidence supports the juvenile 

court’s jurisdictional finding. 

DISPOSITION 

 The judgment is affirmed.