Filed 9/27/21 In re K.W. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re K.W., et al., Persons Coming 

Under Juvenile Court Law.

_______________________________

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

B.W.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B309940

 (Los Angeles County Super.

Ct. No. 20LJJP00528A-E)

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, Michael Kelley, Judge. Affirmed.

Jill Smith, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant.

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

Assistant County Counsel, and Peter Ferrera, Deputy County 

Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________
2

INTRODUCTION

Mother appeals after the juvenile court assumed

jurisdiction over her five children pursuant to Welfare and 

Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), and ordered family 

maintenance services.

1 Mother challenges both the jurisdiction 

and the disposition orders. As to the former, she contends that

there was insufficient evidence that her mental health problems 

interfered with her ability to provide regular care and 

supervision of the children. She asserts the court abused its 

discretion in its disposition by ordering her to participate in 

counseling, mental health services, parenting classes, and limited 

drug testing. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. Mother’s Mental Health Problems

The family consists of mother, father, and their five

children (born 2009, 2011, 2013, 2016, and 2019). Mother and 

father had been together for 11 years. Mother (32 years old) had 

a traumatic childhood, during which her own mother abandoned 

her (at age 15) for drugs, and mother’s biological father neglected 

her. By the summer of 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic cut mother

off from the spiritual support she had been receiving at her 

church, and mother’s childhood trauma surfaced to impact her 

daily functioning. The parents also struggled with their 

relationship and finances. Mother experienced ongoing thoughts 

of hurting herself.

On June 23, 2020, mother sought psychiatric care, and was 

diagnosed with depression and bipolar disorder. During her 

intake evaluation, she denied alcohol use but admitted to quitting 

methamphetamine 11 years earlier. She denied prior psychiatric 

1 All subsequent statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code.
3

hospitalizations but reported her mother and brother had a

history of mental illness. The psychiatric evaluator included this

in her comments on mother’s judgment and insight: “Unrealistic 

Decisions” and “Insight, Poor.” Mother reported symptoms of 

depression, isolation, crying, anxiety, monthly panic attacks, 

insomnia, worry, racing thoughts, rumination of thought, anger, 

nightmares, yelling, cursing, breaking things, “poor ADLs”

(activities of daily living), moodiness, feeling bad about herself, 

appetite concerns, little energy, trouble concentrating, 

irritability, and trouble relaxing. Mother said these symptoms 

had been recurring for five years. She began to take prescribed 

Zoloft for depression. The treatment provider noted mother 

likely needed a mood stabilizer, which would be addressed at the 

next session.

2. Mother’s Apparent Suicide Attempt

On July 9, 2020, around 11:00 p.m., the parents had been 

drinking and mother became angry when father made a comment

about how mother was dancing. Mother declared she no longer 

wanted to be on this earth, and put 10 to 15 Zoloft pills in her 

mouth, allegedly to scare father. She immediately spit out some 

or all of the pills.2 Mother had made suicidal statements 

previously but had never acted on them. The children did not see

these events but were nearby in their bedrooms.

Father called 9-1-1, and initially stated: “My wife suicide

. . . .” According to the transcript of the 9-1-1 call: Father 

provided his address and told the dispatcher that mother “just 

took a bunch of pills down her throat right now.” Father then 

indicated that mother spit them out but he did not know if she 

ingested some. Father reported mother had walked away from 

2 Father was not sure if mother spit out all the pills and said 

she could have consumed two to three pills.
4

him and was in another room. During the call, mother was 

recorded in the background saying to father that she was never 

going to talk to him again. Father tried to console a crying child 

in the background.3 Father then told mother that she did not 

need to take his keys, and mother told him that they were her 

keys.

The transcript continued: Mother told father, “ ‘I’m not 

going to a mental ward because of you. Your baby . . . kids are 

just crying their fucking heads off.’ ” Mother told father that 

their relationship was over, and father replied he was not 

concerned about that and wanted mother “ ‘to be better.’ ” 

Mother repeated that she and father were “ ‘over’ ” and then said, 

“ ‘Mommy is going to be going.’ ” The dispatcher advised father to 

stay away from mother so that she did not attack him, and 

Father acknowledged the advice and said alcohol was involved. 

Father told mother that she did not need to take the baby, and 

mother indicated she was just saying goodbye to her and told the 

child that she hoped father could take care of her. Mother 

walked out of the home and was gone for a short while. Father 

went looking for her with a flashlight. The call ended as police 

arrived. 

By the time law enforcement arrived, Mother had returned 

to the home. Mother denied wanting to hurt herself and said she 

wanted to be there for her children. Father reported to the first 

responders that mother had made suicidal statements in the past 

but had never acted on them and never threatened to harm the 

children. While holding her youngest child, mother refused to go 

to the hospital for evaluation. The officers did not force the issue 

out of concern that the situation would escalate or the child 

3 It appears that the youngest child, who was about 15 

months old at this time, was crying throughout the call.
5

would be injured. Law enforcement concluded that mother was 

not a danger to herself or others, and left.

3. DCFS Investigation

Following law enforcement’s investigation of mother’s 

apparent suicide attempt, DCFS received referrals indicating the 

family was in need of services. Mother told the investigating 

social worker that she had recently started taking a generic form 

of Zoloft, and it had been an adjustment for her. Mother believed 

the medication was not yet fully effective, and she had thoughts 

of hurting herself. Mother said she had also started therapy. 

Mother denied that she intended to harm herself when she took 

the pills on the night of July 9th. 

Father told DCFS that this was the first incident of this 

nature and suggested that if mother had wanted to take her life, 

she would not have made the attempt when he was home. Father 

reported that the children were aware generally of what had 

happened. He told them that the fire trucks came to make sure 

mother was okay. He did not want them to know the details of 

the incident as they were too young. Father referred to mother’s 

actions as “ ‘a call for help.’ ” He told DCFS that mother’s 

medication was working now, mother seemed happy, and she was 

no longer isolating herself in her room.

All five children appeared well cared for. The eldest 

reported feeling safe at home and that mother took good care of 

her and her siblings. Mother did all the cooking and cleaning. 

The eldest child also stated that father worked long hours and 

slept when he was home. The child reported the parents would 

argue but never physically hit each other. The parents’ 

arguments confused her but did not make her feel unsafe. The 

six-year-old daughter likewise reported feeling safe with the 

parents and that she was not afraid on the day of the incident. 
6

The other children did not make meaningful comments due to 

their age or shyness.

Mother’s psychiatrist reported mother was a fairly new 

patient. At this stage of treatment, medication often needed 

adjustment. The psychiatrist would continue to monitor and 

adjust mother’s medication as needed. The psychiatrist was not 

concerned about mother’s present ability to provide care and 

supervision for the children. 

4. Section 300 Petition; Jurisdiction and Disposition 

Hearing

On August 24, 2020, DCFS filed a section 300 petition that 

included allegations that the children were at risk due to 

mother’s mental and emotional problems and her recent attempt 

to harm herself.

On November 3 and 19, 2020, the juvenile court

adjudicated the section 300 petition. The court admitted the 

DCFS reports, which included a transcript of the 9-1-1 call.

Mother testified to facts stated above.

The attorney for DCFS argued an amended petition should 

be sustained, asserting the 9-1-1 transcript showed mother was 

unable to care for the children or herself and that father 

appropriately intervened. He told the court the children had 

witnessed the incident. The negative impact of the events on the 

children was confirmed by their crying and the need for father’s 

consolation. The children’s attorney agreed to an amended 

version of the petition and expressed concern that the parents

had “attempt[ed] to downplay the incident” in their DCFS 

interviews. The attorney pointed out that mother previously had 

admitted a history of suicidal thoughts, and the evidence was 

inconsistent on whether mother swallowed some of the pills.

Mother’s attorney argued mother showed poor judgment 

and immaturity, but did not rise to the level for the court to 
7

assume jurisdiction. He argued for dismissal of the petition as 

the children were well-cared for and not at risk. Father’s 

attorney joined in mother’s argument.

The juvenile court found true by a preponderance of the 

evidence an amended version of the section 300, subdivision (b)(1)

allegation, which stated:

“[Mother] has mental and emotional problems 

including a diagnosis of Bipolar II Disorder, 

Depression, which interferes with mother’s ability to 

provide regular care and supervision of the children. 

On 7/9/20, the mother took 10 to 15 pills in an 

attempt[ ] to harm herself due to mother’s mental 

health issues. The mother failed to take the mother’s 

psychotropic medication as prescribed. The mother 

failed to participate in consistent mental health 

treatment. Such mental and emotional problems on 

the part of the mother endangers [sic] the children’s 

physical health and safety and places the children at 

risk of serious physical harm, damage, danger and 

failure to protect.”

The court explained its reasoning: “I start with the best 

evidence [of] what was happening, which is the transcript of the 

911 call. And I have to say that anyone who cares about children 

would have to be chilled by the scene that played out as according 

to the transcript. And while I understand that there is evidence 

that mother may not have had a rational plan to commit suicide, 

that’s certainly what father thought, which is what he said in the 

first statement he made to the 911 operator, something about 

suicide.” The court continued: “I’m also very aware that the 

clear evidence of what triggered this was a relatively modest 

disagreement. Father made some negative remarks about the 

way mother was dancing. If that kind of a situation can create 

the situation that spiraled the way it did on July 9th, then there 

is a concern that some of the normal stress of family living today 

could trigger another episode. And I think that puts the children 
8

at risk. I also note that one of the children was in mother’s arms 

at certain times during this incident. Children were awakened.

[¶] And even though father is appropriately removed from the 

[section 300] count on a failure to protect basis, I don’t believe we 

can assume that mother, with her current challenges for mental 

and emotional health, would be able to fully care for the 

children.”

The juvenile court declared the children dependents and 

ordered that they remain in the parents’ custody. The court 

ordered family maintenance services and a treatment plan for the 

family. When asked if he wanted to be heard regarding the case 

plan proposed by DCFS, mother’s attorney replied, “Submitted, 

Your Honor.”

The juvenile court ordered both parents to attend parenting 

instruction, conjoint counseling, and individual counseling to 

address mental health issues, protective parenting, and effective 

communication. The court ordered mother to provide four 

random or on-demand drug tests. DCFS was to drug test father 

if there was suspicion of use. The court ordered the three oldest 

children be assessed for counseling.

Mother filed a timely notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION

1. Substantial Evidence Supports Jurisdiction

The juvenile court found the children dependent under 

section 300, subdivision (b)(1). That subdivision provides, in 

part, that a child may be declared dependent if “child has 

suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, 

serious physical harm or illness, as a result of the failure or 

inability of his or her parent or guardian to adequately supervise 

or protect the child, or the willful or negligent failure of the 

child’s parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the 

child from the conduct of the custodian with whom the child has 
9

been left. . . .” (§ 300, subd. (b)(1).) “A jurisdictional finding 

under section 300, subdivision (b)(1), requires [DCFS] to 

demonstrate the following three elements by a preponderance of 

the evidence: (1) neglectful conduct, failure, or inability by the 

parent; (2) causation; and (3) serious physical harm or illness or a 

substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness.” (In re L.W. 

(2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 840, 848.)

“We review the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings for 

sufficiency of the evidence. We review the record to determine 

whether there is any substantial evidence to support the juvenile 

court’s conclusions, and we resolve all conflicts and make all 

reasonable inferences from the evidence to uphold the court’s 

orders, if possible. However, substantial evidence is not 

synonymous with any evidence. . . . [W]hile substantial evidence 

may consist of inferences, such inferences must be a product of 

logic and reason and must rest on the evidence [citation]; 

inferences that are the result of mere speculation or conjecture 

cannot support a finding.” (In re Drake M. (2012) 

211 Cal.App.4th 754, 763 (internal quotation marks and citations 

omitted).) 

Here, by her own admission, mother had significant mental 

health problems, including suicidal ideation, for five years. Only 

recently had she sought psychiatric care for her condition. Three 

weeks before the pill incident, she was diagnosed with depression 

and bipolar disorder. The juvenile court reasonably found that 

mother’s mental health problems impacted her daily living 

activities and fostered her poor judgment. As the trial court 

pointed out, mother engaged in a suicidal act in response to mere 

comments from father about her dancing. That she spat out 

some or all of the pills did not remedy mother’s severe reaction to 

the situation and poor judgment. 
10

The transcript of 9-1-1 call and the police report confirmed 

that mother’s mental health problems interfered with her ability 

to care for the children. With the children awakened and the 

baby crying during the parents’ argument, mother displayed 

callousness for the children’s emotional and physical wellbeing. 

She stated “Mommy is going to be going,” and told one child that 

she hoped father could take care of the child. After police 

arrived, mother placed the baby in possible danger by holding the 

child when law enforcement wanted to detain mother. 

The trial court aptly assessed that the triggering event was 

a “relatively modest disagreement. Father made some negative 

marks about the way mother was dancing. If that kind of a 

situation can create the situation that spiraled the way it did on 

July 9th, then there is a concern that some of the normal stress of 

family living today could trigger another episode.” Given that 

mother was the children’s primary caretaker – father worked 

long hours and slept when home – the court reasonably found 

that her conduct illustrated a significant and real danger to the 

children in her care. 

Mother argues the finding of risk was unsupported and 

cites In re James R. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 129, 136 (James R.). 

In that case, the mother took eight ibuprofen tablets while 

drinking beer. (Id. at pp. 131-132.) When the mother realized 

she was having an adverse reaction, she called for help and was 

hospitalized. (Id. at p. 132.) The evidence showed she was not 

suicidal and did not intentionally try to harm herself, but took a

large dose of ibuprofen for pain relief since she had built up a 

tolerance for acetaminophen (generic Tylenol). (Ibid.) Both the 

mother’s psychiatrist and the social worker working with mother

opined that the mother did not pose a risk to her young children. 

(Id. at pp. 133-134.) The parents lived together, and the father at 

all times had been able to provide adequate care for the children. 
11

(Id. at p. 134.) The appellate court reversed the juvenile court’s 

findings that under section 300, subdivision (b), the mother’s 

supposed mental health problems and substance abuse

endangered her children. (Id. at p. 137.) 

We find the facts of this case significantly differ from those 

in James R. The evidence here showed that mother had a history 

of suicidal thoughts, engaged in recent intentional dangerous 

behavior, and demonstrated seriously poor judgment, all in the 

presence of the children. 

The present case involves the substantial risk prong of 

section 300, subdivision (b)(1) – the children were not physically 

harmed. Risk assessment requires the application of facts to 

predict possible future events. It is short of provable science. In 

dependency cases, the juvenile court is initially tasked with that 

assignment. The substantial evidence standard of review 

mandates that an appellate court defer significantly to the 

juvenile court’s assessment of that risk. This is especially so in 

cases, such as this one, when the person whose conduct is 

implicated testifies, and the witness’s demeanor may be assessed 

by the trier of fact. What is not required is proof that actual 

physical harm has already occurred. And for good reason. “The 

idea that state authority can be mobilized only after the fact is 

untenable. Power is not disabled from dealing with latent risk.

The state, having substantial interests in preventing the 

consequences caused by a perceived danger is not helpless to act 

until that danger has matured into certainty. Reasonable 

apprehension stands as an accepted basis for the exercise of state 

power.” (In re Eric B. (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 996, 1003.)

The juvenile court expressly found that “mental and 

emotional problems on the part of the mother endangers [sic] the 

children’s physical health and safety and places the children at 
12

risk of serious physical harm, damage, danger and failure to 

protect.” We conclude substantial evidence supports that finding.

2. The Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Ordering 

Family Maintenance Services

Mother argues that the court abused its discretion in 

ordering family maintenance services.4 We first observe that 

mother failed to object to the case plan proposed by DCFS. “[T]he 

failure to object to a disposition order on a specific ground 

generally forfeits a parent’s right to pursue that issue on appeal.” 

(In re Anthony Q. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 336, 345.) Even if we 

were to consider mother’s arguments on the merits, we would 

conclude there was no abuse of discretion. 

“If a child is adjudged a dependent child of the court on the 

ground that the child is a person described by Section 300, the 

court may make any and all reasonable orders for the care, 

supervision, custody, conduct, maintenance, and support of the 

child . . . .” (§ 362, subd. (a).) “The trial court has broad 

discretion to make virtually any order deemed necessary for the 

well-being of the child . . . .” (In re Sergio C. (1999) 

70 Cal.App.4th 957, 960.) “At disposition, the juvenile court is 

not limited to the content of the sustained petition when it 

considers what dispositional orders would be in the best interests 

of the children. [Citations.] Instead, the court may consider the 

evidence as a whole.” (In re Briana V. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 

297, 311.)

4 In her opening brief, the heading for mother’s argument 

that this court should reverse the dispositional order suggests her 

contention is limited: if jurisdiction is reversed so, too, must the 

dispositional order. But the text of mother’s discussion also 

contains arguments directed to individual elements of the family 

maintenance plan. Accordingly, we address those points as well.
13

Here, the juvenile court ordered mother to participate in 

individual and psychiatric counseling, conjoint counseling with 

father, parenting instruction, and four random drug tests. 

Mother’s psychiatric care and counseling were clearly supported 

by the record of her mental health problems. Her therapist 

recommended therapy. The July 2020 pill incident, which caused 

the children distress and showed mother’s poor judgment (even if 

not a suicide attempt) supports the court’s decision to order 

parenting instruction. Mother’s history of methamphetamine use 

(even though remote) and consumption of alcohol, which played a 

role in the July 2020 incident, support the limited drug testing 

ordered by the court. The pill incident was an abuse of 

prescribed medication, further supporting drug testing.

DISPOSITION

The court’s jurisdiction and disposition orders are affirmed.

RUBIN, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

BAKER, J.

KIM, J.