Filed 12/13/21 In re A.D. CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re A.D. et al., Persons Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 B309523

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

M.D.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct.

 Nos. 20CCJP03820A,

 20CCJP03820B)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Pete R. Navarro, Judge Pro Tempore. Affirmed.

Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, and Tracey Dodds, Principal Deputy 

County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Appellant Department of 

Children and Family Services.
2

Linda B. Puertas, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant M.D.

William Hook, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Respondent H.D.

Marissa Coffey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Respondent Minor A.D.

——————————

In the dependency of A.D. and N.F., the juvenile court 

issued a disposition order removing the children from the custody 

of M.D. (mother) and placing them with A.D.’s paternal 

grandparents. (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 361, subd. (c)(1).) Mother 

appeals, challenging the removal order for lack of substantial 

supporting evidence. The Department of Children and Family 

Services (DCFS) defends the removal order but challenges the 

placement order because H.D. (father) lives with the 

grandparents and is only allowed monitored contact with the 

child. A.D. agrees with father and DCFS that the removal order 

should be affirmed and, along with mother, supports the 

placement order. We find no abuse of juvenile court discretion 

and affirm the disposition order in its entirety.

BACKGROUND

I. The petition

N.F. (age 3) is A.D.’s (age 9) half sister from a different 

father. A.D. was previously a dependent of the juvenile court 

because of father’s alcohol abuse and because father was arrested 

for driving on a suspended license while under the influence, with 

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code.
3

A.D. unrestrained in the car, and then left A.D. alone in the car 

with the motor running for an extended period of time (case No. 

DK03987). When the juvenile court terminated the prior 

dependency, it granted mother sole physical custody of, and 

ordered that father have monitored visitation with, A.D.

In June 2020, DCFS received a referral of general neglect. 

An employee of the hotel where mother and the children were 

living found N.F. alone in the stairwell calling for mother. The 

door to the family’s room was ajar and A.D. was asleep. Mother 

and N.F.’s father, F.F., were in another room at the hotel. The 

hotel employee called the police. 

Mother told DCFS she had no permanent address. She 

would allow A.D. to stay with his paternal grandfather where 

father also lived, despite the order limiting father to monitored 

visitation. Mother reasoned that A.D. wanted to stay with 

paternal grandfather where he was not left alone with father. 

A.D. stated he enjoys being with mother. They used to 

spend more time together but now mother “ ‘goes in the bathroom 

to do work.’ ” A.D. reported he has a good relationship with 

father. When at grandfather’s house, A.D. plays with friends who 

live a few houses away, listens to music with father, watches 

television with his grandparents, and watches YouTube. A.D.

stated that father drinks beer sometimes but does not act 

differently when he drinks. The child felt safe there. N.F. was 

unable to provide a statement.

Paternal grandfather clarified that the grandparents have 

cared for A.D. for the majority of the child’s life. A.D. primarily 

stays with paternal grandparents during the school year because 

school is nearby. When school is out, A.D. goes back and forth 

between mother and paternal grandparents, which schedule 
4

makes the child feel insecure. The grandparents want A.D. to be 

safe and are always attentive to his needs.

Father had all of the symptoms of being under the 

influence of alcohol when he met the social worker. He explained

he had just gotten off work and had some beer. Father described 

mother as very aggressive and abusive. Along with father, 

paternal aunt lives in paternal grandparents’ house. A.D. sleeps 

in the grandparents’ room; not with father.

Mother’s friend explained that paternal grandparents, not 

father, are responsible for caring for A.D. The child asked 

mother if he could remain with paternal grandparents over the 

summer because he enjoyed playing with his cousins. The friend 

had no concerns about A.D.’s safety in paternal grandparents’ 

house.

DCFS filed a petition naming mother and father, and 

alleging serious physical harm and failure to protect. (§ 300, 

subds. (a) & (b)(1).) The juvenile court detained A.D. from father,

placed him in the supervision of DCFS, and released both 

children to mother. 

II. The jurisdiction order

The social workers had difficulty interviewing mother for 

the jurisdiction and disposition report. The family was not at the 

address where they purportedly lived. Between late August and 

mid-September 2020, mother made herself unavailable to DCFS 

and prevented the social worker from having access to the 

children. She postponed meetings and drug tests, and either did 

not respond to calls and texts, or agreed to allow the social 

worker to interview the children while avoiding scheduling a day 

and time. 
5

Law enforcement notified DCFS in August 2020 that 

mother and F.F. created a disturbance at a motel. A.D. ran to the 

lobby asking for help because a man was hitting mother. Mother 

claimed F.F. pulled her hair. Law enforcement was called to a 

different hotel in September 2020 where A.D. reported that F.F. 

assaulted mother by slamming her into a bathtub. The police 

filed a report of suspected child abuse. Mother denied to the 

investigating social worker that she left the children 

unsupervised or that she had an open dependency case. Mother 

gave an explanation for the bathtub incident that did not 

implicate F.F. While mother was relating her story to DCFS, 

F.F. called her. The social worker overheard F.F. ordering 

mother not to tell DCFS what happened. After that, mother 

denied that anything occurred. Mother relies on F.F. for financial 

support.

Mother did not allow the social worker to interview A.D.

alone. Nonetheless, A.D. told the social worker that he did not 

like the way F.F. treats mother, claiming F.F. was mean to her

and scared him sometimes. A.D. described the bathtub 

incident: Mother was in a fetal position in the bathtub yelling 

for help as F.F. tried to get keys from her. Hearing mother 

yelling, A.D. ran into the bathroom to pull F.F. off mother. He 

then ran to the front desk crying that F.F. was beating his 

mother up. N.F. was watching cartoons at the time. A.D.

recalled another incident a month earlier while N.F. was taking a 

bath. F.F. slapped mother and told A.D. to leave the bathroom. 

Mother then interrupted the interview to ask A.D. about that

event, at which point A.D. became emotional and ran out of the 

room. Mother then claimed she remembered the earlier incident 

and gave another innocent, alternative explanation.
6

At the jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court sustained 

counts b-1 and b-6 in the amended petition finding true that: in 

June 2020, mother failed to provide appropriate care and 

supervision because N.F. was found wandering in the stairway 

and A.D. was asleep in a motel room without adult supervision; 

and mother and F.F. have a history of engaging in violent 

altercations, which A.D. witnessed. (§ 300, subd. (b)(1).) The 

court dismissed the petition’s counts naming father and so he is 

nonoffending. The court ordered the children to remain released 

to mother under the supervision of DCFS. 

III. The disposition order

Finding it had insufficient information to hold the 

disposition hearing, the juvenile court continued it to allow DCFS 

to reassess placement with mother and to evaluate paternal 

grandparents for placement there under a home-of-father order. 

The court also allowed father to have monitored visits in paternal 

grandparents’ home. Mother indicated she was staying in a hotel 

in Hollywood and so the court ordered DCFS to provide hotel 

vouchers to mother.

DCFS’s ensuing report reflected that mother was moving 

out of her hotel but had provided no information about where she 

was going. She agreed to allow the social worker to interview the 

children but did not respond to numerous text requests to share 

their location. Finally, A.D. told the emergency social worker the 

name of their hotel. 

Father told DCFS that A.D. was staying with paternal 

grandparents. Mother was two days late to pick the child up. 

Father described why he believed mother was using 

methamphetamines. 
7

Step-maternal grandmother was unable to reach mother. 

That grandmother knew mother abused substances when mother 

was with father. 

DCFS recommended that the juvenile court remove the 

children from mother’s care. Mother had not made contact in a 

week and DCFS was concerned about domestic violence, possible 

substance abuse, and lack of protection for the children. A.D. had 

witnessed at least two incidents of domestic violence and N.F. is 

very young and needs the care of a sober and available parent. 

DCFS was unable to provide hotel vouchers to clients and 

referred mother to social services but they only offered vouchers 

for two weeks. Mother rejected DCFS’s referrals to shelters. 

Paternal grandfather was willing to care for both children 

and to be considered as a placement for them, even if that meant 

father would be required to move out. A.D. was never left alone 

with father; paternal grandparents stayed with A.D. whenever he 

spent time with father. DCFS found paternal grandparents’ 

home to be cluttered and recommended that it be cleaned up for 

N.F., who is a toddler. 

Father was willing to move out of the home to enable 

paternal grandparents to care for both the children. Father had 

not completed any of the programs the juvenile court ordered 

during A.D.’s previous dependency and so DCFS continued to be 

concerned about father’s unresolved alcohol abuse. Paternal 

grandfather also viewed father’s drinking as a problem.

At the disposition hearing, the juvenile court found that 

“circumstances are such that there is an incredible amount of 

disorganization to mother’s life. It’s hard to determine from one 

date to the next where she’ll be with these children.” The court 

ordered both children removed from mother’s custody—noting 
8

A.D. had already been removed from father—ordered N.F. 

removed from her father, and placed both children in the home of 

paternal grandparents. The court did not require father to move 

out of the home but ordered that he not be alone with the 

children. The court also ordered family reunification services for 

both mother and father. Mother, DCFS, and father appealed.

2

We appointed counsel for the children.

DISCUSSION

I. No abuse of discretion in removing the children from 

mother’s custody. 

When a child has been adjudged a dependent of the 

juvenile court under section 300, the juvenile court conducts a 

disposition hearing at which it decides, among other things, 

whether the child will remain in the parent’s physical custody 

during the period of the court’s supervision. (§ 361, subd. (a); In 

re N.M. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 159, 169.) Subdivision (c)(1) of 

section 361 authorizes the court to remove a dependent child 

from the physical custody of the parent with whom the child 

resides if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that there is or 

would be a substantial danger to the child’s physical or emotional 

well-being if not removed, and there are no reasonable means to 

protect the child without removal.

In deciding whether to remove a child from parental 

custody, “ ‘[t]he [juvenile] court may consider a parent’s past 

conduct as well as present circumstances.’ ” (In re John M. (2012) 

212 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1126.) The parent need not be dangerous,

2 Father’s appeal was dismissed but he filed a respondent’s 

brief in this appeal.
9

and the child need not have been actually harmed before removal 

is appropriate. “ ‘The focus of the statute is on averting harm to 

the child.’ ” (In re N.M., supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 170.)

“ ‘The juvenile court has broad discretion to determine 

what would best serve and protect the child’s interests and to 

fashion a dispositional order accordingly. On appeal, this 

determination cannot be reversed absent a clear abuse of 

discretion.’ ” (In re D.P. (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 1058, 1071.) We 

review the disposition order, including a disposition order 

removing a child from a parent’s physical custody, for an abuse of 

discretion (In re K.T. (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 20, 25), and we 

review for substantial evidence the findings of fact on which the 

removal order is based (ibid.). When reviewing a finding that 

requires proof by clear and convincing evidence, such as here, we 

consider “whether the record as a whole contains substantial 

evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it 

highly probable that the fact was true.” (Conservatorship of O.B.

(2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1011.) 

Mother contends that the only reason the juvenile court

removed the children from her custody was her poverty and

homelessness. She argues that “the biggest risk to this mother

and her children was her inability to find and afford stable

housing.” Not so. 

Housing and poverty were nowhere alleged in the petition. 

Had mother’s homelessness been the driving concern, the

juvenile court would have removed the children from her custody

at the outset. Instead, when it detained A.D. and N.F. and then

when it first sustained the petition,the court did not remove the

children from mother’s custody, despite the fact that the family

lived in hotels. Instead, the court ordered DCFS to investigate
10

whether to remove the children and to provide the court with

more information on which to make its decision. When mother

complained at the disposition hearing that removal was

penalizing her based on her poverty and unstable housing, the

court responded,“it’s more than that.”

Looking at the whole record (In re Rodger H. (1991)

228 Cal.App.3d 1174, 1183 [juvenile court may consider the

circumstances of the child and family, including matters not

pleaded in petition]), it shows that these children are at

substantial risk of harm because mother leaves them alone

unsupervised, and repeatedly exposes them to domestic violence. 

At least once, A.D. could have been hurt when he tried to

intervene to protect mother from F.F.’s aggression. Such

negligence could occur regardless of whether a family is

homeless. Moreover, mother made it difficult for DCFS to

supervise the children and assure their safety, not because she

moved frequently, but because she refused to keep the social

worker apprised of her whereabouts or to allow DCFS access to

the children. The court’s principal concern is a disposition

consistent with the best interests of the children. (Ibid.) Any

reasonable fact finder would have found it highly probable that

these children were at substantial risk of serious harm if left in

mother’s dangerous and neglectful custody, irrespective of

mother’s poverty and homelessness. The juvenile court did not

abuse its discretion in removing the children from mother’s

custody.

II. No abuse of discretion in placing the children with paternal 

grandparents.

DCFS contends that the placement order was an abuse of 

discretion because there is no evidence that father attempted to 
11

resolve his alcohol-related issues that led to his loss of physical 

custody, and so father’s presence in paternal grandparents’ home 

poses a risk to the children. 

The juvenile court has wide discretion in issuing placement 

orders and its determination will not be disturbed absent a 

manifest showing of abuse of that discretion. (In re Sabrina H. 

(2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1420–1421.) The test for abuse 

of discretion is whether the juvenile court exceeded the bounds of 

reason by making an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd 

determination. (Ibid.) We will interfere only if no judge could 

reasonably have made the same order. (Ibid.)

Section 361.3, subdivision (a) gives “preferential 

consideration” to a “request by a relative of the child for 

placement of the child with the relative.” (Italics added.) In 

assessing whether to place a child with a relative, section 361.3, 

subdivision (a) directs the juvenile court to consider, among other 

things, the parent’s wishes; a sibling’s placement; the good moral 

character of the relative and any other adult living in the home, 

including whether any individual residing in the home has a 

prior history of child abuse or neglect; the nature and duration of 

the child’s relationship with the relative; the relative’s desire to

care for, and to provide legal permanency for, the child; and the 

relative’s ability to provide a safe, secure, and stable 

environment, exercise proper and effective care and control of the 

child, and to protect the child from his or her parents. This 

preferential consideration is not a guarantee of relative 

placement. The best interest of the child remains the linchpin of 

the court’s analysis. (In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057, 

1068.)
12

Here, the evidence shows that all of the adults in the family 

want the children to live with paternal grandparents. A.D. has a 

good relationship with paternal grandparents, as he has lived 

there the majority of his life, trouble-free. Under this 

arrangement, A.D. and N.F. can be placed together. The record 

reflects no problem with paternal grandparents’ character. 

Admittedly father lives in the home and there is no evidence he 

has addressed the causes of A.D.’s prior dependency. However, 

paternal grandfather was clear, and mother and her friend 

confirmed,that A.D. is never left alone with father and 

presumably N.F. will not be left alone with father either. 

Paternal grandparents did not work which enabled them to 

remain vigilant about protecting the children from father. The 

friend expressed no concerns about A.D.’s safety with paternal 

grandfather, who provided appropriate care, and never allowed 

unsupervised contact between father and child. Furthermore, 

unlike with mother, A.D. feels safe and likes living with paternal 

grandparents where he has food to eat, sleeps in his own bed in 

grandparents’ room, has friends, and attends school. He had 

already asked mother if he could remain there during the 

summer. The grandparents were concerned only with the 

children’s best interest, including school, stability, medical care, 

and assured that A.D. always had food. Finally, father was 

amenable to moving out of the grandparents’ home. DCFS has 

supervisory authority and can always seek a juvenile court order 

that father move out should the necessity arise. Based on this 

record, therefore, we cannot say that the court abused its 

discretion in fashioning the placement order it did.
13

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

WINDHAM, J.*

We concur:

EDMON, P. J.

EGERTON, J.

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

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

Constitution.