Filed 8/21/20 In re K.S. CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re K.S., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 B302069

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP06266)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF 

CHILDREN AND FAMILY 

SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

K.S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the jurisdictional and dispositional orders

of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Rashida A. Adams, 

Judge. Affirmed. 

Paul A. Swiller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Appellant.
2

Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Acting 

Assistant County Counsel, and Aileen Wong, Deputy County 

Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________

In this dependency case, it is undisputed that the juvenile 

court properly asserted jurisdiction over 6-year-old K.S., who 

lived with his maternal grandparents. Maternal grandfather 

sold methamphetamine; maternal grandmother used 

methamphetamine; and mother abused methamphetamine and 

did not have time to care for K.S. because she was either 

incarcerated or focusing on her own self-improvement. 

Father argues that even though jurisdiction was proper, 

the juvenile court erred in sustaining allegations that he failed to 

protect K.S. from mother and maternal grandparents. Father’s 

argument is unpersuasive because it is inconsistent with the 

juvenile court’s credibility determinations. Father relies on his 

statements that he was unaware of mother’s substance abuse and 

unaware that maternal grandparents sold and used controlled 

substances. The juvenile court, however, expressly found father’s 

statements lacked credibility. 

Father also challenges the juvenile court’s dispositional 

order insofar as the court found that it would be detrimental to 

place K.S. in father’s custody. Father again relies exclusively on 

evidence discredited by the juvenile court. Because father fails to 

demonstrate error, we affirm the juvenile court’s jurisdictional 

and dispositional orders. 
3

BACKGROUND

Three days before the Los Angeles County Department of 

Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed the Welfare and 

Institutions Code1 section 300 petition, mother, who was 24 years 

old, was released from incarceration. Three months earlier, 

maternal grandmother was released from incarceration. 

Maternal grandmother reported that mother violated her 

probation within the three-day release period. 

1. Petition

In September 2019, DCFS filed a section 300 petition. At 

the time, father lived in Nevada. DCFS alleged that mother has 

a history of substance abuse and currently abused marijuana and 

methamphetamine. DCFS alleged that father “failed to take 

action to protect the child when the father knew, or reasonably 

should have known of the mother’s substance abuse and allowed 

the mother to have unlimited access to the child.” DCFS further 

alleged that mother and father created a dangerous home 

environment for K.S. by allowing him to reside in the home of 

maternal grandparents. DCFS also alleged that mother has a 

history of mental and emotional problems rendering her 

incapable of caring for K.S. The juvenile court sustained the 

foregoing allegations.

DCFS alleged that father failed to protect K.S. from 

mother’s emotional problems. The juvenile court did not sustain 

this allegation.

1 Undesignated statutory citations are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code. 
4

2. Maternal grandparents

Because mother frequently was incarcerated, K.S. lived 

with his maternal grandparents. Suspecting that maternal 

grandfather was selling drugs, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s 

Department executed a search warrant on February 2019 at the 

maternal grandparents’ residence, where officers found one 

pound of methamphetamine, one gram of marijuana, and two .38 

caliber rounds. K.S. could access the controlled substances and 

the ammunition. The officers arrested maternal grandfather on 

drug charges. 

At that time, K.S. had been living at maternal 

grandparents’ residence. Maternal grandfather reported he was 

K.S.’s primary caretaker.

2 Maternal grandfather admitted to 

selling and using methamphetamine. When a social worker 

entered the grandparents’ home, K.S. was draped in a dirty 

blanket. 

3. Mother

At the beginning of the dependency proceedings, mother 

reported she was enrolled in a substance abuse treatment 

program directed at treating marijuana and methamphetamine 

abuse. Mother denied knowing that maternal grandfather sold 

methamphetamine. Mother admitted she started using 

methamphetamine when she was 18 years old. Mother further 

reported she had been incarcerated for possession of a firearm. 

Mother also stated she has “PTSD, trauma, anxiety and 

depression.” Mother stopped taking her medication for these 

2 When the officers asked K.S. where his father was, K.S. 

answered, “My daddy is my grandpa.” 
5

mental disorders two weeks prior to the filing of the dependency 

petition. In September 2019, mother tested positive for 

marijuana. 

Mother left K.S. in maternal grandfather’s care so that 

mother could “get [herself] situated first,” describing that as her 

“main focus.” (Boldface omitted.) Mother reported that father 

did not parent K.S. According to mother, father “was never 

around, he never made an effort to see him.” 

4. Father

Father admitted that he had been arrested for stealing a 

car. 

On September 24, 2019, father contacted a social worker,

stating he heard that DCFS detained K.S. Father reported that 

he had just returned to Nevada after spending two weeks in Los 

Angeles. Father stated he visited K.S. while he was in Los 

Angeles but did not see mother because her “whereabouts were 

unknown.” Father claimed that he did not observe controlled 

substances or weapons in the home. On September 26, 2019, 

father did not show up for a drug test. 

Father stated he did not know what mother “does with her 

life. From what I heard she just got out of jail and is in a 

program now.” Father told the social worker he recently had 

learned that mother was incarcerated for a three-year period. 

When asked why he did not care for K.S., father answered that 

he cared for K.S. for a nine-month period when mother previously 

had been incarcerated. Father explained that he “ha[d] concerns” 

about K.S. in mother’s care and that mother was “never around.” 

Father believed mother was not around because she was a gang 

member and “[s]he is in the streets.” 
6

The next time father spoke to a social worker, he 

contradicted several of his earlier statements. According to 

father, mother “never used any drugs” in the three to four years 

they lived together. Father reported mother had no history of 

drug use. Father knew mother “smoke[d] weed” but “never 

suspected any abuse.” Father stated, “I have been picking up my 

son twice or three times a month for the past 2-3 years and never 

suspected anything. Most of the time I went to pick him up she 

wasn’t there and her dad would tell me she was out or that she 

was working. I didn’t know she was in and out of jail.” Father 

denied knowing mother was incarcerated and denied knowing 

paternal grandfather sold controlled substances. “If I knew 

[mother] was in and out of jail, trust me I would have had my son 

under my care. I am able and willing to take care of my son.” 

Father did not know if K.S. went to the doctor or if K.S. had 

any medical concerns. K.S. told a social worker that he wanted to 

live with father. 

Father has two other children, who according to him “were 

taken away because their mom tested positive for meth when my 

baby was born. The baby was born positive at birth too. I had a 

case because they said, how I knew and didn’t step in so I had to 

do parenting classes.” Father reported that when the Nevada 

case closed, he had custody of his two children. 

The following allegation was sustained against father in a 

Nevada court: Father neglected his two children “by failing to 

provide proper care, control, supervision, subsistence, education, 

shelter, medical care or other [care] necessary for their wellbeing, resulting in circumstances that indicated that their health 

and/or welfare was harmed or threatened with harm.” 
7

5. Following a hearing, the juvenile court assumed 

jurisdiction over K.S.

No witness testified at the jurisdictional hearing. 

As noted, the juvenile court sustained the allegations in the 

petition except it found no evidence father had knowledge of 

mother’s emotional problems. On the other hand, the court found

“the father’s statements of complete lack of knowledge of the 

mother’s substance abuse and what was going on in the child’s 

home to be not credible. The father’s statements are 

inconsistent. He indicated at one point that he has known the 

family for many years yet did not suspect anything at all. [¶] 

However, the evidence before the court indicates the maternal 

grandfather appears to have been an established drug dealer, the 

maternal grandmother an established methamphetamine user, 

that the mother has been using methamphetamine since age 18. 

And the parents had a relationship in which they were living 

together for a period of two to three years. [¶] The court finds it 

not credible that the father had no idea at all of any of the drug 

use and abuse that has been really permeating this child’s life 

and caregivers.” 

The juvenile court also found that father first reported 

knowing that mother was incarcerated and later reported 

complete ignorance. The court concluded that father knew of 

mother’s incarceration and “[d]espite that knowledge, the 

evidence before the court indicates that the father did nothing to 

investigate the maternal grandparents . . . .” “The father knew 

that the mother was not able to care for the child given her 

frequent absence. And, in fact, the father indicated . . . that the 

mother was in the streets and in a gang, yet he continued to 
8

allow the child to be under the mother’s custody and in an 

unsuitable environment with the maternal grandparents.” 

The juvenile court also referenced father’s lack of 

knowledge of the circumstances of his other children. “So, again, 

the court finds it completely not credible that the father had no 

idea what was going on. The court finds that the father’s 

statements evidence a pattern of failure to protect in the face of 

drug abuse and drug sales out of the home of the child.” 

6. Following a dispositional hearing, the juvenile court 

denied father’s request for custody of K.S. 

No witness testified at the dispositional hearing. During 

argument, father’s counsel requested that the court give custody 

of K.S. to father.3 Counsel argued that father had custody of his 

other two children in Nevada. 

The court found clear and convincing evidence that it would 

be detrimental to place K.S. with father. The court further found 

that father failed to protect K.S. “Despite the father completing 

the services, and satisfying the Nevada child welfare department 

regarding his other children, it appears that the father was 

unable to use the same skills learned in the protection of this 

child in that 6 or 7 months later the case is before this court as to 

this child under very similar circumstances.” 

The court ordered father to be drug tested if DCFS 

suspected him of drug use. The court ordered father to attend 

individual counseling to address the case issues and ordered him 

to attend a parenting class. The court permitted father 

unmonitored visits. 

3 K.S.’s counsel did not object to placement of K.S. outside 

of father’s custody.
9

Father timely appealed from the juvenile court’s 

jurisdictional and dispositional orders. As noted, father 

challenges jurisdiction only insofar as it concerns him. 

Additionally, father challenges the dispositional order only 

insofar as it deprives him of custody of K.S. Mother did not 

appeal. 

DISCUSSION

“ ‘[W]e review both the jurisdictional and dispositional 

orders for substantial evidence. [Citation.] In doing so, 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. [Citation.] But substantial evidence 

“is not synonymous with any evidence. [Citations.] A decision 

supported by a mere scintilla of evidence need not be affirmed on 

appeal. [Citation.] . . . ‘The ultimate test is whether it is 

reasonable for a trier of fact to make the ruling in question in 

light of the whole record.’ [Citation.]” [Citation.]’ ” (In re 

Joaquin C. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 537, 560.)

The juvenile court’s finding that it would be detrimental to 

place K.S. in father’s custody must be based on clear and 

convincing evidence. (In re D’Anthony D. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 

292, 295.) Our Supreme Court recently explained: “[W]hen 

presented with a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence 

associated with a finding requiring clear and convincing evidence, 

the court must determine whether the record, viewed as a whole, 

contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of 

fact could have made the finding of high probability demanded by 
10

this standard of proof.” (Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 

989, 1005.)

A. Substantial Evidence Supported the Juvenile Court’s 

Jurisdictional Findings that Father Failed to Protect 

K.S. From Mother and Maternal Grandparents

Father argues: “The juvenile court found true the 

allegations that Father knew of Mother’s substance abuse and of 

the grandparents’ using and selling drugs in their home. 

Substantial evidence did not support these findings.” 

Although arguably father’s argument is not cognizable 

because jurisdiction is uncontested, we exercise our discretion to 

consider it. One parent’s conduct—here mother’s conduct—is

sufficient to support dependency jurisdiction. (In re Alexis E.

(2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 451.) We choose to consider father’s 

jurisdictional challenge because absent substantial evidence to 

support jurisdiction, father would be a nonoffending parent, i.e.,

his conduct would not serve as a basis for dependency 

jurisdiction. (In re Quentin H. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 608, 613; 

In re Drake M. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 754, 762–763.) 

Additionally, the juvenile court’s finding that it would be 

detrimental to place K.S. in father’s custody was a direct 

consequence of the jurisdictional findings. 

On the merits, father’s argument is unpersuasive. Father 

ignores the juvenile court’s extensive credibility findings. Father 

cites to his own statements that he was unaware that mother or 

grandmother used drugs or that grandfather sold drugs. The 

juvenile court found father’s statements lacked credibility. This 

court does not reweigh the juvenile court’s credibility findings. 

(In re Joaquin C., supra, 15 Cal.App.5th at p. 560.) Finally, 

father emphasizes that he cooperated with DCFS and visited 
11

K.S., but fails to show that his postpetition cooperation is 

relevant to whether he knew of mother’s substance abuse or 

grandparents’ use and sale of methamphetamine. Nor does he 

show that his postpetition conduct is relevant to whether he 

failed to protect K.S. from the risk posed by mother and maternal 

grandparents.

Once the juvenile court’s credibility findings are considered, 

the evidence supports the conclusion that father had knowledge 

of mother’s drug use and grandfather’s drug dealing. The 

juvenile court found “it not credible that the father had no idea at 

all of any of the drug use and abuse that has been really 

permeating this child’s life and caregivers.” Additionally, father 

engaged in a pattern of failing to protect his children, requiring 

intervention of Nevada authorities to protect K.S.’s half-siblings 

whose mother abused controlled substances. Although father 

took a parenting class as part of the Nevada proceeding, he 

nevertheless failed to protect K.S. when K.S. needed his 

protection. 

B. Substantial Evidence Supported the Juvenile Court’s 

Determination that It Would Be Detrimental to Place 

K.S. In Father’s Custody

When a child is removed from a parent’s custody and a 

noncustodial parent requests custody, the juvenile court must 

place the child with the noncustodial parent unless it finds by 

clear and convincing evidence that it would be detrimental to do 

so. (Section 361.2, subd. (a);

4 In re Marquis D. (1995) 

4 Section 361.2, subdivision (a) provides: “If a court orders 

removal of a child pursuant to Section 361, the court shall first 

determine whether there is a parent of the child, with whom the 
12

38 Cal.App.4th 1813, 1821.) Section 361.2 applies regardless of 

whether the noncustodial parent is offending or nonoffending. 

(In re D’Anthony D., supra, 230 Cal.App.4th at p. 295.) In 

contrast to the jurisdictional findings, which are made by a 

preponderance of the evidence, the juvenile court is required to 

assess detriment under a clear and convincing evidence standard. 

(Ibid.) 

This court reviews the juvenile court’s finding of detriment 

for substantial evidence. (In re Patrick S. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 

1254, 1262.) We ask whether the record viewed in the light 

most favorable to the juvenile court’s finding is sufficient for 

a reasonable trier of fact to find detriment by clear and 

convincing evidence. (In re John M. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1564, 

1569–1570.) 

Viewed through the lens of our standard of review, father 

demonstrates no error. Substantial evidence supported the 

juvenile court’s finding that it would be detrimental to K.S. to 

place K.S. in father’s custody. Father acted in a manner 

incompatible with parenthood because he failed to protect K.S. 

when K.S. needed his protection. Father left K.S. in the custody 

child was not residing at the time that the events or conditions 

arose that brought the child within the provisions of Section 300, 

who desires to assume custody of the child. If that parent 

requests custody, the court shall place the child with the parent 

unless it finds that placement with that parent would be 

detrimental to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional 

well-being of the child. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a 

certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a 

dependent child to reside with their parent shall not be, for that

reason alone, prima facie evidence that placement with that 

parent would be detrimental.” 
13

of mother, who jeopardized his safety through her substance 

abuse and who was often absent from K.S. because of her periods 

of incarceration. Despite knowing that mother was frequently 

incarcerated and knowing that mother was in a gang, father 

did not intervene to protect K.S. Father’s contrary argument 

ignores the juvenile court’s express findings.

Father relies heavily on In re C.M. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 

1394, 1402 but mischaracterizes that case. In re C.M. identifies 

permissive factors for a juvenile court to consider when assessing 

detriment including the child’s wishes, sibling bonds, and the 

child’s relationship with the noncustodial parent. Father 

incorrectly alters the permissive language to mandatory 

language, arguing that K.S.’s wishes, his sibling bonds, and his 

relationship with father required placing K.S. in father’s custody. 

Father’s argument ignores the well-established principle that 

the preference for placement with a noncustodial parent 

applies only “when safe for the child.” (In re Patrick S., supra,

218 Cal.App.4th at p. 1262.) Here, the juvenile court properly 

focused on K.S.’s safety, and as explained above, the juvenile 

court’s determination that it would be detrimental to place K.S. 

in father’s custody was supported by the record. 

In any event, in this case, the permissive In re C.M. factors 

do not support father’s contention that the juvenile court should 

have placed K.S. in his custody. K.S. had a minimal relationship 

to father. Other than the nine-month period in which father 

cared for K.S., father visited K.S. sporadically when he visited

Los Angeles. Father did not even know if K.S. visited the doctor. 

Mother reported that father had little to no interaction with K.S. 

There was no evidence K.S. met his half-siblings or shared a 

relationship with them. Father states that K.S. would be able to 
14

“further develop” his sibling bonds but identifies no such sibling 

bonds. Although K.S. stated that he wanted to live with father, 

the juvenile court was not required to place him with father 

when doing so would risk his safety. (In re Patrick S., supra, 

218 Cal.App.4th at p. 1265 [“a child’s preference is not the 

deciding factor in a placement decision” under section 361.2, 

subd. (a)].)

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders 

are affirmed. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

BENDIX, Acting P. J.

We concur:

CHANEY, J.

SINANIAN, J.*

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the 

Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California 

Constitution.