Filed 3/11/15 Cassandra M. v. Super. Ct. CA2/5 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

CASSANDRA M., et al., 

 Petitioners, 

 v. 

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS 

ANGELES COUNTY, 

 Respondent; 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND 

FAMILY SERVICES, 

 Real Party in Interest. 

 B260600 

 (Super. Ct. No. CK46066) 

 (Marguerite D. Downing, Judge) 

 

Petitions for Extraordinary Writ: Denied 

 Law Office of Marlene Furth, Melissa A. Chaitin and Christina Samons, under 

appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Petitioner Cassandra M. 

 Law Offices of Katherine Anderson, Jennifer Pichotta and Diana Walch, under 

appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Petitioner Raymond D. 

 Mark J. Saladino, County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, 

and William D. Thetford, Principal Deputy County Counsel for Real Party in Interest. 
2 

INTRODUCTION 

 C.M. (mother) and R.D. (father) of C.D., Ra.D., and S.D., separately petition for 

extraordinary relief from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders. 

Mother and father contend that there is insufficient evidence supporting the juvenile 

court’s orders to sustain jurisdictional allegations and to refuse to offer reunification 

services. We deny the petitions for extraordinary writ. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURE 

 Mother and father have records with Child Protective Services (“CPS”) in more 

than one state. In March 1999, Florida CPS investigated a referral alleging physical 

abuse by father toward his son J.L. The records identify mother as father’s 22-year-old 

daughter. Mother was pregnant at the time, and father forced her to pretend she was 17 

years old so he could collect economic assistance. The investigation showed that father 

hit his son with a fishing pole and a metal bat, that he was violent with others and with 

dogs, that he bragged about having killed people, that he was abusive toward mother, and 

that he threatened mother “if she called [illegible] he would blow them away, her and 

J[.L.].” The investigation also found that father had previously had children removed 

from him in Pennsylvania due to abuse. K.M., mother’s mother, initially said she was 

father’s wife and the mother of J.L. and mother. She also said father was not the father of 

mother’s baby. The police believed she said this so that father would not be arrested for 

impregnating a minor. Later, K.M. changed her story and said mother was not her 

daughter and also that mother was not father’s daughter. 

 When mother gave birth to a son on March 13, 1999, hospital records showed she 

was 17-years-old. Father told the hospital staff that he was the father of the child, and 

demanded to sign the birth certificate. He became confrontational and violently shook 

mother’s hospital bed, saying, “I’m going to do what I want to do.” However, when a 

social worker said she would have to call law enforcement because mother was a minor, 
3 

he changed his story and denied being the child’s father. The staff called for security and 

father left, saying he was going home to get his gun so he could “blow everybody away.” 

The child was removed and later adopted when mother failed to reunify with him. The 

disposition was “abandonment.” 

 On August 6, 2001, mother gave birth to a girl in Los Angeles County. Both 

mother and child tested positive for cocaine at the time of birth. The child was removed 

and later adopted when reunification efforts were unsuccessful. The record later 

identifies the child’s father, Chris G., as father’s son and the brother of two of the 

children involved in this matter. 

 Mother gave birth to another baby girl in Florida on January 6, 2003. Mother 

initially said she lived with her father and brother. Later, she said she lived with a friend 

she met at a homeless shelter. Still later, she said the friend was actually her uncle. 

Mother reported the uncle’s name was Joseph G., but he could not provide an 

identification to verify his name. The uncle said mother would be living with him and his 

wife, K.M. Later, he said he did not live in the house and was never married to K.M. 

K.M., for her part, said they had divorced a year ago. She could not remember Joseph 

G.’s name and had not seen him in a year. The home was found inadequate, and the child 

was removed due to “inadequate supervision/caretaker present, inadequate food, and 

inadequate shelter.” 

 Mother tested positive for cocaine while pregnant in May 2004. On August 5, 

2004, she gave birth to another child, who was removed by Florida CPS and adopted. 

 On April 18, 2013, the Department of Children and Family Services (“DCFS”) 

received a hotline referral alleging general neglect and emotional abuse of three-year-old 

Ra.D. and six-year-old C.D. by mother and father. The referral indicated that mother and 

father left the children unattended while they “binge[d] on crack cocaine and alcohol,” 

and that father physically abused mother and “busted mother’s head open” in front of the 

children. The referral further alleged that father beat a dog to near death in April 2012, 

although mother took the “wrap” and went to jail for a week. Father allegedly beat up the 
4 

elderly woman who lived in the home at the time because the elderly woman opened the 

door for the police, resulting in mother’s arrest. The referral reported that mother has lost 

custody of six children and that she gives birth in different states to avoid losing custody 

of her children. 

 Child Social Worker (“CSW”) Maurice Ukattah investigated the referral. Father, 

mother, and the children all denied domestic violence, and the children did not appear 

fearful of mother or father. Mother reported a history of cocaine use but denied any 

current drug use. She also acknowledged a history of schizophrenia, and agreed to seek 

mental health services. Father initially denied substance abuse, but later reported that he 

occasionally uses marijuana for medicinal purposes. He did not have a medical 

marijuana card. Mother also reported that she was on probation for animal cruelty. Both 

mother and father stated that mother hit the dog with a newspaper. The incident report 

indicates that the dog was hit with a bat. 

 Mother and father told CSW Ukattah that they were homeless and living with a 

friend. They promised that the friend would contact CSW Ukattah to arrange a home 

assessment, but the friend never did so, despite repeated inquiries. 

 Based on the investigation, the allegations were substantiated and the family was 

offered a voluntary family maintenance agreement. Shields for Family was the lead 

agency. The parents enrolled in parent education classes, mother began participating in 

mental health treatment, and both parents agreed to random drug tests. Father 

consistently tested positive for marijuana. On July 12, 2013, he provided DCFS with a 

copy of a medical marijuana certificate. He later tested positive for cocaine on 

September 12, 2014, and then failed to show up for drug tests on September 26, 2014 and 

October 3, 2014. On July 10, 2013, mother gave birth to S.D. 

 At a September 23, 2013 team decision meeting, father began to yell and curse 

when he was asked to complete a live scan.1

 Father said he was depressed and wanted to 

 

1 “Live Scan is an electronic fingerprinting system that provides a vehicle for 

quickly checking an individual's criminal background. (See Health & Saf.Code, § 
5 

kill himself. A staff member of the Department of Mental Health who was present asked 

him to report immediately for mental health treatment, as that was the third time he had 

threatened to kill himself. Father never showed up. Father was also encouraged to stop 

using marijuana, as he did not have a medical need for the drugs, and he promised to do 

so. 

 At a meeting on September 30, 2013, father asked that the case be closed. He was 

told that could not happen unless he stopped smoking marijuana in front of the children, 

submitted to a live scan, participated in random drug testing, and enrolled in mental 

health counseling. At that point, father became visibly angry, started yelling, and again 

threatened to kill himself and leave his family. 

 On October 1, 2013, without any provocation and in front of the children and the 

CSW, father threatened to kill himself yet again. He said: “I am just tired with the whole 

thing and feel like killing myself. I will just move out of the house and you all can now 

deal with her without me because I am not doing any live scan or testing or doing any 

mental health because I won’t be with them and you all can have them if you want.” 

Father left the home after that. Father’s name is identified with several aliases that are 

associated with registered sex offences. 

 Despite father’s claim that he had moved out, the CSW and Shields for Family 

found father at the home on several home visits. On November 12, 2013, he was found 

hiding in the closet with no shirt on. When father was found at home on two other 

occasions, mother insisted he was only visiting the children. Then, during a June 19, 

2014, unannounced home visit, mother tried to prevent the CSW from entering the 

bathroom. The CSW found father nude, hiding inside the bathroom. When the CSW 

asked father whether he was willing to live scan, father became enraged and threatened to 

kill himself again. Once again, the children were present. On June 20, 2014, father 

agreed to enroll in mental health counseling, but continued to refuse to live scan. 

 

1522.04.)” (Los Angeles County Dept. of Children & Family Services v. Superior Court

(2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 144, 149, fn. 2.)
6 

 On June 23, 2014, the CSW heard from mother’s counselor. The counselor said, 

“I really do not like what I am seeing lately. You might have to test her for drugs. . . . I 

know she moved out of the apartment into a motel with three little kids and I don’t know 

what that is about. I noticed that the child and her hygiene is deteriorating fast in the last 

couple of months.” On June 26, 2014, the CSW asked mother to take a drug test and she 

refused. Mother subsequently failed to show up for drug tests on July 23, 2014, August 

18, 2014, and September 3, 2014. 

 On July 3, 2014, mother and father were served with a removal order. In the 

presence of four police officers and the children, father began yelling profanities and 

threats. The children began crying and shivering. Father threatened the CSW: “I will 

beat your ass wherever I see you and I hope your mother die, you mother fucker bitch.” 

 Following removal, the CSW interviewed C.D. and Ra.D. C.D. denied that she 

got spanked, but volunteered that her father smokes meth in the bathroom. When asked 

whether she had ever seen her father smoke meth, she said, “No, my brother Christina 

told me. My brother name was Chris, but now he is Christina.” C.D. confirmed that her 

brother’s last name is G. and that he is father’s son. Chris G. is a registered sex offender. 

When asked when she had last seen him, C.D. said, “in a long time.” 

 When the CSW asked Ra.D. about spankings, however, she said, “Yes, my daddy 

and mommy spanks me with a belt.” Upon hearing this, C.D. yelled, “That is not true.” 

Ra.D. was then taken into a separate office and asked again about spankings. Ra.D. again 

said she and C.D. were spanked with a belt on their buttocks. 

 C.D. and Ra.D. were also interviewed about their care and supervision in the 

home. C.D. said: “We are hungry. We barely eat and my mom don’t cook no more 

because we don’t have anything to cook with. My [dad] lives with us and he likes to 

spank us with a belt if we don’t be quiet or when we be bad.” As for Chris G., she said, 

“That is my older brother. His name now is Christina, he is she. He used to stay with us. 

Now he comes to visit us but he is a she. I saw him last December, 2013.” At that point, 
7 

Ra.D. said, “[T]hat is not right; he came over not too long ago.” C.D. told Ra.D. to be 

quiet. 

 On July 7, 2014, father and mother were in the DCFS office when father became 

enraged and violent. He threatened bodily harm to CSW Ukattah and punched the walls 

in the reception area. DFCS called the sheriffs, who asked the parents to leave. They 

left, but returned shortly after the sheriffs left. Father again became enraged and 

threatened to harm CSW Ukattah, frightening the other clients waiting in the reception 

area. Mother agreed to a live scan, but father said he had no identification and so could 

not live scan. 

 After placement with a foster parent, Ra.D. told the CSW and the foster mother, 

“We loves it here, I don’t want to go back. She is my mom now.” The CSW told Ra.D. 

that all would be fine and that they could go home to their mother and father as soon as 

their parents did what they needed to do, but Ra.D. insisted she wanted to stay and 

continued to cry until the CSW left. 

 DCFS filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 3002

on 

July 9, 2014, alleging (a) the parents physically abused the children, (b) mother had a 13-

year history of drug use, (c) mother had three children who were permanently removed 

due to her substance abuse, (d) father had a history of substance abuse and was a current 

user of methamphetamine and marijuana, and (e) father had mental and emotional 

problems, including a history of making suicide threats. The juvenile court detained the 

children on July 9, 2014. On August 11, 2014, DCFS filed an amended section 300 

petition adding allegations that mother suffered from mental and emotional problems, 

including schizophrenia and active bipolar disorder. 

 In advance of the jurisdiction hearing, DCFS conducted further investigation and 

prepared a report. As part of the investigation, mother and father were re-interviewed. 

Mother acknowledged that she had lost three children because of her substance abuse and 

 

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

otherwise indicated.
8 

that she never completed a substance abuse program. She reported that she began using 

drugs as a teenager, but claimed that she last used drugs over eight years ago. She stated 

she was diagnosed with schizophrenia and active bipolar disorder ten years ago, and 

admitted that she heard and saw things. She talked to her dead mother and aunt, and 

sometimes saw a pink elephant. Mother and father both denied that father wanted to 

harm himself or anyone else. They also denied that father ever threatened to harm social 

workers. Father reported that he had been with mother for 17 years, but denied that he 

was the father of the three children who had been removed from her custody. The 

parents’ weekly visits with the children were going well. 

 On July 15, 2014, a multidisciplinary assessment team summary of findings report 

(“MAT assessment”) was completed for S.D., who was one year old at the time. The 

parents refused to participate in the assessment, and father verbally abused the assessor. 

The assessment found that S.D. was exposed to father’s “daily angry outbursts,” 

including one that happened during a monitored visit. The visitation monitor reported 

that S.D. presented with a “flat/blunt affect,” and that mother “froze with fear” and was 

unable to protect the child. 

 The assessment found that S.D. was impaired in her socio-emotional development. 

She appeared to have been left in a stroller for most of the day and evening, with little or 

no interaction from the parents. She had a flat/blunt affect and poor eye contact. She 

was unable to express emotions through words, body language, or facial expression. She 

would scream and cry when an item was taken from her, and then abruptly shut down as 

if responding in fear of negative consequences for crying. She was unable to signal when 

she was hungry or satiated, and did not cry when her parents left. She could not pull 

herself up to stand or walk while holding onto furniture and could not copy gestures or let 

go of things without help. Both the assessor and the foster mother observed that S.D. was 

underactive and would “just sit there with a blank face” and remain unresponsive for 

hours at a time. 
9 

 At an August 11, 2014 hearing, the court ordered father to submit to a live scan. 

Father’s counsel indicated that father had “no objection” to live scans, but could not do so 

because he does not have an identification card. The court then ordered that he live scan 

when he obtains identification. Nonetheless, as of August 26, 2014, father still had not 

live scanned or obtained identification, even though DCFS had provided him with the 

reduced rate California identification card application form on three different occasions. 

 On August 20, 2014, a DCFS investigator contacted the New Jersey Department 

of Children and Family, and learned that father had three children in New Jersey who had 

been permanently removed from his custody. Father also had several arrests for 

possession of controlled substances. In a subsequent letter, the New Jersey Department 

of Children and Family Services confirmed that the children had been adopted. It 

explained: “In order for the children to be placed for adoption, both parents must agree 

to terminate their parental rights. [¶] It appears, according to our records, that while the 

children were in the care of NJDCF, [father] chose to have little or no interaction with 

our agencies, in regard to his children.” 

 Based on this information, DCFS filed a second amended petition on August 28, 

2014, alleging that father’s parental rights to three other children had been terminated. 

DCFS recommended that both father and mother be denied reunification services. 

Although father did not testify, his counsel represented that he denied that he is the father 

of the children identified by the New Jersey Department of Children and Family Services. 

Father also denied using aliases. 

 Following a jurisdiction/disposition hearing, the juvenile court sustained the 

section 300 petition on eight counts alleging physical abuse by father and mother (counts 

a-2 and b-4), illicit drug use by father and mother (counts b-2 and b-1), mental and 

emotional health problems on the part of father and mother (counts b-3 and b-6), that 

mother’s three other children were permanently removed from her care due to her illicit 

drug use (count j-1), and that father’s parental rights to three other children had been 

terminated “as he failed to comply with prior court orders regarding the children” (count 
10 

j-4). Count b-2 was amended to reflect that father is a current abuser of cocaine, rather 

than methamphetamine. 

 After hearing argument, the juvenile court denied reunification services to both 

parents, citing section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(10), (b)(11), and (b)(13) with respect to 

mother and section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(11) and (b)(13) with respect to father. 

 Father and mother timely filed notices of intent to file writ petitions. Father 

challenges the juvenile court’s decision to sustain count j-4 and mother challenges the 

decision to sustain counts b-1 and j-1. Both argue that the court erred in failing to offer 

them reunification services. 

DISCUSSION 

 A. Standard of Review 

 We review the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional findings, as well as 

its order denying reunification services, under the substantial evidence standard of 

review. (In re P.A. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1344; In re Albert T. (2006) 144 

Cal.App.4th 207, 216; In re Jasmine C. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 71, 75; In re Kristin H.

(1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1635, 1654.) 3 We resolve all conflicts in support of the 

determination, examine the record in a light most favorable to the dependency court’s 

findings and conclusions, and indulge all legitimate inferences to uphold the court’s 

order. (In re Brison C. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1373, 1379; In re Tania S. (1992) 5 

Cal.App.4th 728, 733). 

 We cannot reweigh the evidence and invoke our judgment over that of the juvenile 

court. “It is the trial court’s role to assess the credibility of the various witnesses, to 

weigh the evidence to resolve the conflicts in the evidence. We have no power to judge 

the effect or value of the evidence, to weigh the evidence, to consider the credibility of 

 

3

 Some courts have applied the abuse of discretion standard of review to a juvenile 

court’s order denying reunification services. (See, e.g., In re Angelique C. (2003) 113 

Cal.App.4th 509, 523-524.) We apply the substantial evidence standard of review.
11 

witnesses or to resolve conflicts in the evidence or the reasonable inferences which may 

be drawn from that evidence. [Citation.] Under the substantial evidence rule, we must 

accept the evidence most favorable to the order as true and discard the unfavorable 

evidence as not having sufficient verity to be accepted by the trier of fact. [Citation.]” 

(In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 52-53.) In our discussion, as required, we 

refer to the evidence that was submitted that supports the juvenile court’s orders. 

B. Jurisdictional Findings

 Father and mother challenge only three of the eight counts sustained by the 

juvenile court. “‘When a dependency petition alleges multiple grounds for its assertion 

that a minor comes within the dependency court’s jurisdiction, a reviewing court can 

affirm the [trial] court’s finding of jurisdiction over the minor if any one of the statutory 

bases for jurisdiction that are enumerated in the petition is supported by substantial 

evidence. In such a case, the reviewing court need not consider whether any or all of the 

other alleged statutory grounds for jurisdiction are supported by the evidence.’ (In re 

Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 451.)” (In re Drake M. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 

754, 762.) Moreover, “a jurisdictional finding good against one parent is good against 

both. More accurately, the minor is a dependent if the actions of either parent bring [him] 

within one of the statutory definitions of a dependent. [Citations.] This accords with the 

purpose of a dependency proceeding, which is to protect the child, rather than prosecute 

the parent.’ [Citations.]” (In re X.S. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1161.) 

 Although this court will exercise its discretion to reach the merits of a 

jurisdictional finding when it serves as the basis of a dispositional order that is also being 

challenged or when the finding is prejudicial to the petitioner (In re Drake M., supra, 211 

Cal.App.4th at pp. 762-673), that is not the case here. The factual bases necessary for 

sustaining jurisdictional counts under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j) are not the 

same as the factual basis necessary for a disposition order denying reunification services 
12 

under section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(10), (b)(11), and (b)(13). We therefore decline to 

reach the merits of mother and father’s jurisdictional findings challenges. 

C. Denial of Reunification Services 

The legislature has recognized that it “‘may be fruitless to provide reunification 

services under certain circumstances.’” (Randi R. v. Superior Court (1998) 64 

Cal.App.4th 67, 70, quoting Deborah S. v. Superior Court (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 741, 

750.) Thus, under section 361.5, subdivision (b), the law provides in part: “Reunification 

services need not be provided to a parent or guardian described in this subdivision when 

the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, any of the following: [¶] . . . [¶] (10) 

That the court ordered termination of reunification services for any siblings or half 

siblings of the child because the parent or guardian failed to reunify with the sibling or 

half sibling after the sibling or half sibling had been removed from that parent or 

guardian . . . is the same parent or guardian described in subdivision (a) and that, 

according to the findings of the court, this parent or guardian has not subsequently made 

a reasonable effort to treat the problems that led to removal of the sibling or half sibling 

from that parent or guardian. [¶] (11) That the parental rights of a parent over any sibling 

or half sibling of the child had been permanently severed, and this parent is the same 

parent described in subdivision (a), and that, according to the findings of the court, this 

parent has not subsequently made a reasonable effort to treat the problems that led to 

removal of the sibling or half sibling of that child from the parent. [¶] . . . [¶] (13) That 

the parent or guardian of the child has a history of extensive, abusive, and chronic use of 

drugs or alcohol and has resisted prior court-ordered treatment for this problem during a 

three-year period immediately prior to the filing of the petition that brought that child to 

the court’s attention, or has failed or refused to comply with a program of drug or alcohol 

treatment described in the case plan required by Section 358.1 on at least two prior 

occasions, even though the programs identified were available and accessible.” 
13 

 1. Denial of Reunification Services to Mother 

 Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s decision to deny reunification 

services to mother under subdivisions (b)(10), (b)(11), and (b)(13) of section 361.5. 

Mother cites In re D.H. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 807. In that case, the court held that 

failure to reunify in the past with other children was not sufficient to deny reunification 

services. But here, there is much more evidence supporting the juvenile court’s order. 

 Mother admitted that she started using drugs as a teenager and that three other 

children were permanently removed from her care because of drug problems. She also 

admitted that she has never been in a drug treatment program. Although she tested 

negative for drugs initially, she refused or failed to show up for four drug tests between 

June and September 2014. Each missed drug test is “properly considered the equivalent 

of a positive test result.” (In re Christopher R. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1217.) 

These missed drug tests all occurred after mother’s counselor informed the CSW, in June 

2014, that she had become concerned about the mother and the child’s hygiene, and 

suggested that mother be tested for drugs. Shortly afterward, on July 3, 2014, the child 

C.D. told the CSW that she and her siblings “are hungry” and “barely eat” because 

mother “don’t cook no more because we don’t have anything to cook with.” As such, the 

record contains evidence that mother (1) failed to reunify with siblings or half-siblings of 

the children and failed to make a reasonable effort to treat the underlying problem 

(section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10)), (2) lost parental rights over the children’s siblings or 

half-siblings and failed to make a reasonable effort to treat the underlying problem 

(section 361.5, subdivision (b)(11)), and (3) has an extensive history of drug use and has 

resisted prior court-ordered treatment (section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13)). There is 

substantial evidence supporting the juvenile court’s refusal to provide reunification 

services to mother. 

 Mother cites In re D.H., supra, 230 Cal.App.4th at page 815, which held that in 

that case “the record . . . does not contain substantial evidence to support the trial court’s 

denial of services on the basis that father had not made reasonable efforts to treat the 
14 

problems which led to the removal of the minors’ half siblings.” In the instant case, there 

is substantial evidence that mother has not made the required reasonable efforts to treat 

the problems that led to the removal of other children. 

 2. Denial of Reunification Services to Father 

 Substantial evidence also supports the juvenile court’s decision to refuse 

reunification services to father under subdivisions (b)(10) and (b)(11) of section 361.5. 

There is evidence that father had three open cases with the New Jersey Department of 

Children and Family Services and failed to reunify with all three children, who were 

subsequently adopted. The New Jersey Department of Children and Family Services’ 

files on the matter show that father had arrests for possession of controlled substances, 

and that he “chose to have little or no interaction with [the] agencies, in regard to his 

children.” This evidence reasonably suggests that father’s children were removed 

because of a substance abuse problem, and because he failed to cooperate with the New 

Jersey Department of Children and Family Service in making efforts to reunify. 

 There is evidence that father has not made reasonable efforts to treat these 

problems. The family received family maintenance services for over a year before DCFS 

filed its section 300 petition. During this time, father consistently tested positive for 

marijuana, even though he had promised to stop using marijuana because he did not need 

it. After the section 300 petition was filed, he tested positive for cocaine on September 

12, 2014, and then failed to show up for drug tests on September 26, 2014, and October 

3, 2014. (See In re Christopher R., supra, 225 Cal.App.4th at p. 1217 [missed drug test 

is “properly considered the equivalent of a positive test”].) There is evidence that he has 

failed to cooperate with DCFS or Shields for Family. Specifically, there is evidence that 

he has refused to submit to a live scan despite repeated requests and a court order; he 

punched the walls in the DCFS office and threatened social workers on multiple 

occasions; and he repeatedly threatened to kill himself when asked to live scan or 

otherwise cooperate with the agencies. 
15 

Father argues that there is no evidence to establish that he is the father of any other 

child or that any other child of his is a dependent of the New Jersey juvenile court. We 

disagree. The New Jersey Department of Children and Family Services’ records indicate 

that father has three open cases in New Jersey. Although father disputes this through 

counsel, he did not testify and submitted no evidence to that effect. If the New Jersey 

Department of Children and Family Services identified him in error, father easily could 

have established that fact by submitting to a live scan. He has not done so despite 

multiple requests and a court order directing him to live scan. 

 D. Best Interests of the Children 

 Even when subdivisions (b)(10), (b)(11), or (b)(13) of section 361.5 apply, the 

juvenile court still may order reunification services if it determines, by clear and 

convincing evidence, that reunification is in the best interests of the children. (§ 361.5, 

subd. (c).) It is the parents’ burden to show that reunification services would be in the 

best interests of the children. (In re Gabriel K. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 188, 197.) 

 There is sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s decision. There is 

evidence showing that C.D., Ra.D., and S.D. have been detrimentally affected by their 

parents’ behavior and general neglect. All three children were exposed to father’s angry 

outbursts on a daily basis. During these outbursts, mother “froze with fear” and was 

unable to protect her children from them. The evidence is that C.D. and Ra.D. shivered 

and cried during father’s angry tirades, while one-year-old S.D. presented with a 

“flat/blunt affect.” The MAT assessment found that this home environment and her 

parents’ neglect had left S.D. significantly impaired in her socio-emotional development. 

Meanwhile, mother had stopped cooking, leaving her children hungry and “barely 

eat[ing].” 

 It does not appear that these significant issues will be ameliorated by reunification 

services. The evidence set forth above supports the juvenile court’s decision. Records of 

father’s violence tendencies and angry outbursts date back to at least 1999, when he 
16 

became violent and confrontational with hospital staff over whether he would be allowed 

to sign the birth certificate of mother’s child, as the child’s father. Mother appears to 

have a history of covering for father’s transgressions. Although it was father who beat a 

dog to near death in 2012, it was mother who took the blame and went to jail. After 

father became angry and told social workers he would move out of the home rather than 

undergo a live scan and family preservation services, mother repeatedly insisted that 

father no longer lived in the home, even though social workers found him hiding in the 

closet and bathroom during home visits. Mother and father have records with the state 

child welfare agencies in multiple states, and most of these cases have resulted in 

permanent removal of their children. In fact, the family received family preservation 

services for over a year before DCFS filed its section 300 petition. If anything, it appears 

the situation worsened over this time. This history suggests that reunification services are 

unlikely to be successful. (See In re William B. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1220, 1228-1229 

[“at least part of the best interest analysis must be a finding that further reunification 

services have a likelihood of success”].) 

 Although the children may be bonded to their parents, that bond alone is not 

sufficient to justify reunification. (See In re William B., supra, 163 Cal.App.4th at p. 

1229.) Moreover, there is evidence that the children have thrived since removal from the 

home. After placement with a foster parent, Ra.D. told the CSW and the foster mother, 

“We loves it here, I don’t want to go back. She is my mom now.” When the CSW told 

Ra.D. that she would be able to go home to her mother and father soon, Ra.D. insisted 

she wanted to stay and cried. 

 Based on the record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the juvenile 

court’s decision to bypass reunification services and set a hearing pursuant to section 

366.26. 
17 

DISPOSITION 

 The petitions are denied. 

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 

 MOSK, J. 

We concur: 

 TURNER, P. J. 

 GOODMAN, J.

 



 Judge of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, assigned by the Chief 

Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.