Filed 9/23/20 In re Xavien D. CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re XAVIEN D., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 B302820

 (Los Angeles County

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent.

v.

BRANDI D.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 Super. Ct. No. 18CCJP06637A)

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County. Sabina A. Helton, Judge. Affirmed.

Jamie A. Moran, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

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

County Counsel, and Melania Vartanian, Deputy County Counsel 

for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

Appellant Brandi D. (mother) appeals from the juvenile 

court’s dispositional orders removing her son Xavien (born 2015) 

from her custody and requiring her to obtain mental health 

services. We affirm the orders.

BACKGROUND

Detention and section 300 petition

In May 2018, the Los Angeles County Department of 

Children and Family Services (the Department) received a 

referral alleging that mother abused drugs and alcohol, and that 

Xavien witnessed ongoing and escalating violence between 

mother and her boyfriend, Ronald C. The referral was deemed 

inconclusive; however, mother agreed to a safety plan barring her 

from living with Ronald and prohibiting contact with him. 

Pursuant to the safety plan, mother and Xavien moved into the 

home of a maternal aunt.

The Department received another referral in August 2018 

for general neglect and emotional abuse of Xavien by mother and 

Ronald. According to the reporting party, drug paraphernalia 

was in open view in the home, which was littered with trash and 

dirty clothes.

Mother told the responding social worker during an August 

6, 2018 interview that Ronald had been arrested for violating a 

condition of his parole prohibiting him from residing with mother 

or having contact with her. Ronald’s parole agent had found a 

methamphetamine pipe in the home and Ronald admitted using 

methamphetamine. Mother said she was aware of Ronald’s 

methamphetamine use but claimed he did not do so when she 

and Xavien were present.
3

Mother identified Xavien’s father as Christian G. (father).1 

A criminal history search showed that father had convictions for 

inflicting corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant and for 

firearm violations.

Ronald’s parole agent informed the social worker that 

Ronald wore a GPS monitor and was considered a member of a 

dangerous street gang. The parole agent said a no contact order 

with mother was a condition of Ronald’s parole given their 

history of domestic violence. Ronald was arrested in January 

2018 for violating that condition. Ronald was again arrested in 

August 2018 when the parole agent found methamphetamine and 

methamphetamine pipes in the home.

Mother’s and Xavien’s whereabouts became unknown in 

mid-August 2018. The Department recommended that Xavien be 

detained at large.

On October 15, 2018, the Department filed a petition on 

Xavien’s behalf under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, 

subdivision (b),2 alleging that mother failed to protect Xavien by 

allowing Ronald to be under the influence of drugs in the child’s 

presence and to possess drugs and drug paraphernalia in the 

home within Xavien’s access.

Xavien’s whereabouts and that of both parents remained 

unknown at the time of the October 16, 2018 detention hearing at 

which the juvenile court ordered Xavien detained from parental 

custody. The juvenile court issued a protective custody warrant 

1 Father is not a party to this appeal.

2 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code.
4

for Xavien, an arrest warrant for mother, and due diligence 

searches for both parents.

Jurisdiction and disposition

Mother’s, father’s, and Xavien’s whereabouts remained 

unknown at the time the Department filed its December 2018 

jurisdiction/disposition report. Ronald’s parole agent informed 

the Department that Ronald was an active gang member and was 

considered armed and dangerous. The parole officer reaffirmed 

that Ronald was prohibited from contacting mother.

In June 2019, the Department reported that Ronald had 

been arrested on April 17, 2019, near the apartment building 

where he and mother had last resided. Law enforcement officers 

subsequently found and arrested mother in the same building. 

The officers took Xavien into protective custody and released him 

to the Department.

In its June 2019 detention report, the Department 

explained the need for Xavien’s continued detention because 

mother presented a flight risk. Mother’s whereabouts had been 

unknown since August 2018, and she had failed to appear at 

scheduled court hearings or to respond to the Department’s 

attempts to contact her. Maternal aunt Jennifer C. told the 

Department’s social worker on June 20, 2019, that mother had 

been hiding from the entire family until she telephoned the 

maternal grandmother from jail.

Mother was present in custody at a June 24, 2019 hearing 

at which time the juvenile court ordered that Xavien remain 

detained. Mother informed the juvenile court that father was 

incarcerated in Orange County, and the court issued a statewide 

removal order for father’s transportation to the next hearing. 

The court ordered the Department to provide mother with 
5

housing referrals and transportation assistance and granted 

mother monitored visitation.

In its July 2019 jurisdiction/disposition report, the 

Department reported that both mother and father had criminal 

histories that included inflicting corporal injury on a spouse or 

cohabitant. A dependency investigator interviewed father, who 

was in federal custody, by telephone on July 8, 2019. Father said 

that mother had a history of drug use and had been unstable 

most of her life. He said mother had accused him of domestic 

violence and that he believed domestic violence was an issue in 

all her relationships. Father said he wanted to be involved in 

Xavien’s life, but mother had not allowed him to do so. Father 

was scheduled to be released from custody in October 2019.

The Department reinterviewed maternal aunt Jennifer C. 

by telephone on July 8, 2019. When asked about mother’s mental 

health, the maternal aunt reported that mother became 

depressed when the social worker told her to avoid contact with 

her boyfriend. She said mother was scared, crying

uncontrollably, and might need therapy.

The social worker met with mother on July 19, 2019, and 

provided her with copies of the section 300 petition, the 

Department’s reports, the juvenile court’s minute orders, and a 

packet of resources for services including housing, food banks, 

and programs for parenting and substance abuse. Mother 

admitted to an incident of domestic violence with father in the 

past and disclosed she had been sexually molested as a child.

A multidisciplinary assessment team (MAT) report 

prepared in August 2019 indicated that the Department had 

referred mother to Tri-City Mental Health Services, where 

treatment modalities included intensive psychiatric assessment, 
6

individual, group, and family therapy, case management services, 

and housing options.

In a last-minute information for the court filed in 

September 2019, the Department reported on information it had 

obtained from the Buena Park Police Department regarding 

domestic violence between mother and father. In 2013, police 

officers reported that mother had sustained bruising and swelling 

around her right eye and cuts and scratches on her chin and 

neck. Mother told the officers that father had punched her 

multiple times until she fell to floor and “blacked out.” Father 

was arrested in 2014 for violating a restraining order protecting 

mother from him and prohibiting him from purchasing firearms.

Mother met with the Department’s dependency 

investigator and social worker on October 3, 2019. She had not 

enrolled in any services but said she was trying to obtain housing 

and to enroll in a substance abuse program. The social worker 

said she could arrange a meeting between mother and a 

substance abuse coordinator at the Department’s office to 

facilitate mother’s enrollment in a drug program. The 

dependency investigator asked to meet with mother at the 

Department’s office on October 8, 2019. Mother agreed to attend 

both meetings and to submit to a drug test on October 4, 2019. 

Mother did not appear for the scheduled drug test, the 

appointment with the dependency investigator, or the meeting 

with the substance abuse coordinator.

The social worker spoke with mother by telephone on 

October 22, 2019. Mother said she had not contacted the 

Department because she had been ill and had not enrolled in 

services because she was focusing on obtaining housing and 

employment.
7

The Department filed a first amended petition on October 

25, 2019 adding allegations under section 300, subdivisions (a) 

and (b), that mother and father had a history of engaging in 

violent altercations and that father had violated a restraining 

order prohibiting contact with mother. Father was present at the 

October 28, 2019 hearing at which the juvenile court found him 

to be Xavien’s presumed father.

In a last-minute information for the court filed in 

November 2019, the Department reported on an October 29, 2019 

interview with father, who had been released from custody. 

Father told the social worker that the violence between him and 

mother was “long ago,” and that the restraining order against 

him was no longer active. Father said he and mother were on 

good terms and they had spoken over the weekend. He denied 

the violent incident with mother described in police reports and 

said mother had falsely accused him. Father’s state parole officer 

confirmed that there was no current restraining order against 

him but that no contact with mother was a condition of father’s 

parole.

The Department reported that Xavien had disclosed an 

incident of domestic violence to his foster caregiver. Xavien said 

that while he was seated in the backseat of mother’s car, a male 

passenger broke the car windshield and began hitting mother 

repeatedly, asking her if she had money. Xavien said the male 

passenger lived with them but had never hit him.

Xavien’s foster mother expressed concerns about mother’s 

interactions with the child. Mother gave Xavien a stuffed animal 

which she referred to as Xavien’s “baby brother.” She told Xavien 

to sleep with it and keep it in his sight, and during telephone 

calls asked him whether he was taking care of it. Mother told the 
8

foster parents that “Xavien lives for me.” She also said that 

Halloween was a difficult time for her, and that she relied on 

Xavien to help her through the pain. Mother told the social 

worker that she was unable to work because she no longer had 

Xavien with her. The Department recommended an Evidence 

Code section 730 evaluation for mother.

Adjudication and disposition

Father testified at the December 3, 2019 combined 

adjudication and disposition hearing. Father said the domestic 

violence with mother occurred in 2013 and that he had no other 

incidents of domestic violence with anyone since then. He 

confirmed that no contact with mother was a condition of his 

parole and denied telling the social worker that he had recently 

spoken with mother.

Mother testified that a violent incident with father 

occurred in 2013 and there had been no altercations or 

communications between them since then. She said father had 

not contacted her in violation of the restraining order and that 

she had sent a letter to father’s parole officer asking that the no 

contact condition be removed.

After hearing argument from counsel, the juvenile court 

sustained the allegations under section 300, subdivision (b), that 

mother failed to protect Xavien by allowing Ronald to be under 

the influence of drugs in the child’s presence, placing Xavien at 

risk of physical harm; and that domestic violence between mother 

and father, including father’s 2014 violation of an active 

restraining order prohibiting contact with mother, placed Xavien 

at risk of harm. The court ordered Xavien removed from 

mother’s custody and placed with father. The juvenile court 

ordered mother to complete a domestic violence support group for 
9

victims; drug and alcohol services with random or on-demand 

testing; parenting classes; individual counseling to address case 

issues, including child safety and childhood trauma; and mental 

health counseling, including a psychiatric evaluation. The court 

accorded mother monitored visits, not to be monitored by father 

or to take place in father’s home.

This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

I. Removal order

Section 361, subdivision (e) requires the juvenile court, 

before removing a child from parental custody, to determine

whether reasonable efforts were made to prevent or to eliminate 

the need for removal and to “state the facts on which the decision 

to remove the minor is based.” (§ 361, subd. (e).)

Mother contends the removal order must be reversed 

because the juvenile court made no factual findings regarding the 

need to remove Xavien from her custody or the lack of available 

alternatives to removal. The juvenile court’s removal order 

states:

“The Court finds by clear and convincing evidence, 

pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code sections 

361(a)(1), 361(c), 361(d) and 362(a), and additionally 

applying to noncustodial parent(s)/legal guardian(s) 

the constitutional and statutory safeguards available 

to custodial parents.”

“It is reasonable and necessary to remove the child 

from the mother, as such removal is defined in 45 

CFR 1356.21(k)(1)(ii), and the care, custody, and 

control of the parent(s)/legal guardian(s) from whom 

the child is being removed because there is a 

substantial danger to the physical health, safety, 

protection, or physical or emotional well-being, and 
10

special needs, if applicable, of the child, and there are 

no reasonable means by which the child’s physical 

health can be protected, without removing the child 

from the home and the care, custody, and control of 

that or those parent(s)/legal guardian(s).”

“The Court further finds that it would be detrimental 

to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional 

well-being, and special needs, if applicable, of the 

child to be returned to or placed in the home or the 

care, custody, and control of that or those 

parent(s)/legal guardian(s).”

“The Department of Children and Family Services 

made reasonable efforts to prevent removal but there 

are no services available to prevent further 

detention.”

“The agency has complied with the case plan by 

making reasonable efforts to return the child home or 

taken whatever steps necessary to finalize the 

permanent plan.”

“The Court orders the child removed from home and 

the care, custody and control of the parent(s)/legal

guardian(s) from whom the child is being removed 

and placed in the care, custody and control of the 

Department of Children and Family Services.”

The reporter’s transcript of the disposition hearing contains no 

additional factual findings by the juvenile court.3

3 Although the Department claims the juvenile court made 

the factual findings necessary to support the removal order, it 
11

One appellate court has agreed with mother’s contention 

that the juvenile court erred by failing to expressly “state the 

facts on which the decision to remove the minor is based” as 

required by section 361, subdivision (e), and that the juvenile 

court’s written disposition order fails to satisfy the statutory 

requirement. (In re D.P. (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 1058, 1066.) We 

conclude, however, that any error by the juvenile court was 

harmless under the circumstances presented here. Failure to 

make required findings under section 361, subdivision (e) will be 

deemed harmless when “‘it is not reasonably probable such 

finding, if made, would have been in favor of continued parental 

custody.’ [Citations.]” (In re Jason L. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 

1206, 1218.) Such is the case here. 

After the initial referral that brought Xavien to the 

Department’s attention, the Department implemented a safety 

plan in which mother agreed to move into the home of a maternal 

aunt and to avoid contact with Ronald. Mother failed to comply 

with that plan. Instead, she moved back in Ronald where drugs 

and drug paraphernalia were accessible to Xavien. Despite a no 

contact order, mother maintained a relationship with Ronald and 

continued to live with him, knowingly exposing Xavien to 

domestic violence and drugs within the home. After Ronald’s 

arrest in August 2018, mother absconded with Xavien and their 

whereabouts were unknown for nearly a year. She and Ronald 

were subsequently arrested in or near the same apartment 

building where they had previously resided.

After Xavien was detained, mother remained 

uncooperative, failing to enroll in any services or to maintain 

fails to identify where in the record these express findings were 

made.
12

consistent contact with the Department’s social worker and 

dependency investigator.

In re Ashly F. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 803, on which mother 

relies, is inapposite. In that case, the juvenile court’s failure to 

state the basis for its removal order and the Department’s failure 

to discuss its reasonable efforts to prevent removal constituted 

prejudicial error when there was “ample evidence” of reasonable 

means to protect the children in the home -- including removing 

the offending parent. (Id. at pp. 809-811.) The offending mother 

admitted abusing the child and was willing to move out of the 

home so the children could remain in the home with the nonoffending father, who had completed a parenting program. (Ibid.) 

Here, in contrast, mother failed to comply with a safety plan that 

required her to live apart from Ronald and to have no contact 

with him. Despite their history of domestic violence, mother 

continued to share a residence with Ronald, in violation of court 

orders prohibiting contact between them. She knew of Ronald’s 

methamphetamine use but continued to reside with him in a 

home where drugs and drug paraphernalia were accessible to 

Xavien. The record discloses no prejudicial or reversible error.

II. Order for mental health services

We reject mother’s challenge to the order requiring her to 

obtain mental health services based on the absence of any mental

health allegations in the petition sustained against her. Under 

section 362, subdivision (d), “[t]he juvenile court may direct any 

and all reasonable orders to the parents or guardians of the child 

who is the subject of any proceedings under this chapter as the 

court deems necessary and proper to carry out this section.” “A 

jurisdictional finding involving the conduct of a particular parent 

is not necessary for the court to enter orders binding on that 
13

parent, once dependency jurisdiction has been established. 

[Citation.]” (In re I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1492.) When 

a court becomes aware of parental deficiencies that may impede 

the parent’s ability to reunify with a child, the court may address 

them in the reunification plan. (In re Christopher H. (1996) 50 

Cal.App.4th 1001, 1008.) An appellate court will not disturb a 

discretionary decision unless it was arbitrary, capricious, or 

patently absurd. (In re Raymundo B. (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 

1447, 1456.)

The record discloses no abuse of discretion. There was 

substantial evidence that mother had unresolved mental health 

issues. Maternal aunt Jennifer C. told the social worker that 

mother was depressed, crying uncontrollably, and appeared in 

need of therapy. Mother expressed dependence on Xavien to help 

her cope with difficulties. The Department recommended an 

Evidence Code section 730 evaluation for her.

In re Jasmin C. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 177 does not 

support mother’s position. The appellate court in that case 

reversed an order requiring a non-offending mother to attend 

parenting education classes when there was no evidence she had 

abused her children or failed to protect them. The Department’s 

intervention was prompted by a single incident in which the 

father engaged in physical conflicts with his two teenaged 

daughters, the mother intervened, restrained him, and directed 

that the police be called. The father was arrested and ordered to 

move out of the home and the children remained placed with 

their mother. (Id. at pp. 179-180.) Here, in contrast, the 

sustained allegations against mother and the evidence in the 

record amply support the juvenile court’s order for mother to 

participate in mental health services.
14

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s orders are affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

____________________________, J.

CHAVEZ

We concur:

__________________________, P. J.

LUI

__________________________, J.

HOFFSTADT