Filed 5/24/23 In re Ta.C. CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions 

not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion 

has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

In re Ta.C.,

a Person Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law.

 B320451

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 22CCJP00570)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

T.C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Daniel Zeke Zeidler, Judge. Affirmed.

Sarah Vaona, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Appellant.
2

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, Navid Nakhjavani, Principal Deputy 

County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________

T.C. (Father) appeals from the juvenile court’s assumption 

of jurisdiction over his infant son Ta.C. based in part on findings 

related to Father’s marijuana use, as well as the court’s related 

dispositional order removing Ta. from Father’s custody. Father 

contends that substantial evidence does not support the juvenile 

court’s jurisdictional and dispositional findings. We disagree and 

affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The underlying proceedings involving Ta. included 

allegations against Ta.’s mother K.K. (Mother) and against 

Father beyond those relating to Father’s drug use. Because this 

appeal involves only Father’s challenges to findings concerning 

his alleged drug use,

1 we limit our recitation of the underlying 

facts and procedural history accordingly.

A. Dependency Proceedings Involving Father’s Other 

Children

Before Ta.’s birth, Father was involved in dependency 

proceedings involving Ta.’s half-siblings, O.C. (born March 2005) 

1 Mother also appealed from the jurisdiction and 

dispositional order, and her appointed counsel filed a brief 

pursuant to In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835. The appeal 

was dismissed on March 7, 2023, after Mother failed to 

personally submit any appellate contentions for court 

consideration.
3

and B.C. (born February 2008). Neither of those other 

dependency matters involve assertions about Father’s alleged

substance abuse. In 2016, the juvenile court sustained a Welfare 

and Institutions Code2 section 300 petition alleging Father’s 

mental health issues placed B.C. at risk of harm. The juvenile 

court subsequently terminated Father’s family reunification 

services and ordered a permanent plan of legal guardianship. 

The guardianship was later dissolved, and the juvenile court 

reinstated jurisdiction over B.C. in September 2021.

In January 2022, DCFS filed a section 300 petition on 

behalf of O.C. alleging that the child’s mother emotionally abused 

the child, that O.C.’s mother failed to provide the child with 

necessary mental health services, and that the mother’s male 

companion engaged in frequent verbal arguments with the child. 

The petition was later amended to allege Father’s history of 

mental and emotional problems endangered O.C. and posed a 

substantial risk of harm to the child.

B. Ta. Is Born and Tests Positive for Marijuana

Ta. was born in January 2022. After his birth, Ta. was

placed in the neonatal intensive care unit with respiratory 

distress. DCFS received a referral indicating Mother had a long 

history of methamphetamine use, and that Mother’s other 

children had been removed from her care and her parental rights 

terminated. Toxicology screens for Mother and Ta. were both 

negative for drugs. A meconium screening for Ta., however, was

positive for marijuana.

2 All unspecified statutory references are to the Welfare 

and Institutions Code.
4

When speaking to a DCFS social worker, Mother asked

DCFS to consider releasing Ta. to Father. Father told DCFS he 

was currently homeless but was in the process of securing 

housing. Father reported that if Ta. was detained from Mother, 

he wanted the child returned to his care.

Father denied any methamphetamine use; he did report 

occasional marijuana use and agreed to drug test. Father tested 

clean on January 24, 2022. He tested positive for marijuana on 

January 26, 2022, at a high level—4358 ng/ml.

3 When Ta. was 

hospitalized, Mother and Father took turns visiting the child. A 

hospital social worker was unaware of Father being under the 

influence when visiting Ta., but stated that Father smelled of 

marijuana during a visit on January 27, 2022.

During its investigation, DCFS received information from a 

family friend of Mother, who expressed concern about Ta. being 

returned to Mother or Father because of their respective criminal 

histories and the fact they were both “on the run because of 

drugs.” A later search showed Father had multiple prior 

convictions including manslaughter in 2009, inflicting corporal 

injury on an intimate partner in 2013, transportation of 

controlled substances in 2014, and possession of cocaine in 2017. 

While under court supervision, Father was arrested again in 

3 Urine samples typically test positive for marijuana if the 

amount of THC in the sample is more than 50 ng/ml. (Univ. of 

Rochester Medical Center, Encyclopedia 

<https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?cont

enttypeid=167&contentid=cannabinoid_screen_urine> [as of 

May 19, 2023].) Father’s test was more than 85 times higher 

than that amount.
5

2017 for possession of methamphetamine, and later convicted of a 

parole violation in connection with that arrest.

C. DCFS Files a Section 300 Petition

On February 15, 2022, DCFS filed a section 300 petition on 

behalf of Ta. based on Mother’s substance abuse (id., subds. (b), 

(j); counts b-1, b-2, j-1, j-2), Mother’s history of mental health 

problems (id., subds. (b), (j); counts b-4, j-2), Father’s substance 

abuse (id., subd. (b); count b-3), and Father’s history of mental 

health problems (id., subds. (b), (j); counts b-5, j-3).

On February 16, 2022, Father took a drug test which was 

negative.

On February 18, 2022, the juvenile court found a prima 

facie case that Ta. was a child described by section 300 and 

detained him from the parents’ custody. Father was permitted 

monitored visitation for a minimum of four hours per week.

On March 11, 2022, a dependency investigator asked

Father if he was willing to complete an on-demand drug test. 

Father declined, saying he had already completed several drug 

tests for DCFS.

In an April 2022 jurisdiction and disposition report, DCFS 

noted Ta. had been discharged from the hospital and was placed 

in the home of a foster parent. In an interview with DCFS, 

Mother stated that in the six years she had been with Father, she 

had never seen marijuana impede him, and she was confident in 

his ability to parent. Father told DCFS he was in a car accident 

in July 2021, and smoked medical marijuana as often as needed 

for chronic pain. Father analogized his marijuana use to alcohol, 

telling DCFS “it’s like alcohol is legal but [I] can’t go to the job 

drunk, parenting is [a] 24[-]hour job, I haven’t had the 

opportunity to be on the job, it’s an assumption, we assume that 
6

you medicate everyday and if you have the care of child I will 

continue. I’m not stupid[;] at the end of the day I am intelligent 

enough to realize cutoff time to take care of my child.”

An April 2022 jurisdiction/disposition report in O.C.’s case 

noted Father drug tested on February 16, 2022, in connection 

with that case and was negative. O.C.’s mother told DCFS in 

March 2022 that Father had been homeless for a very long time,

and sold drugs while living in the street. Father had sent O.C.’s 

mother a text message saying “I got good coke,” which she 

forwarded to the DCFS investigator.

Returning to Ta.’s case, DCFS also reported to the juvenile 

court that Father completed a mental health assessment and did 

not meet the criteria for services. Father began participating in

drug abuse counseling services through Skid Row Development 

Corporation in October 2021, remained compliant, and was 

scheduled to finish the program on April 7, 2022. Father also 

completed financial literacy and life skills courses.

DCFS also reported that it had received a referral 

regarding Ta. on April 20, 2022. The child had not gained any 

weight in the last three weeks and was admitted to the hospital 

to determine if there was an organic cause for the lack of weight 

gain. Ta. was in the hospital for a few days; he also had a history 

of cardiac problems including a small hole in his heart. DCFS 

was informed such a hole is a common issue with children, but it 

requires monitoring.

DCFS requested that Father drug test on April 15, 2022; 

Father did not comply and said he would test when it was court 

ordered.
7

D. Jurisdiction/Disposition Hearing

On May 10, 2022, the juvenile court held the jurisdiction 

and disposition hearing. Father was present and represented by 

counsel. The court admitted into evidence various reports from 

DCFS and took judicial notice of the documents contained in the 

case files for O.C. and B.C. The court also admitted into evidence 

two exhibits offered by Father: an April 12, 2022, letter from the 

Department of Mental Health stating Father did not meet the 

criteria for mental health services, and a certificate that Father 

had completed the 90-day outpatient drug and alcohol treatment 

program through the Skid Row Development Corporation on 

April 7, 2022.

Father’s counsel requested the juvenile court dismiss the 

substance abuse count alleged against Father, noting Father 

completed an outpatient program and provided several negative 

drug tests. Father’s counsel acknowledged that Father initially

continued to smoke marijuana while participating in his 

program, but that subsequent negative tests showed Father was 

receptive to services.

Ta.’s counsel argued that Father’s prior drug-related 

convictions, his January 26, 2022 drug test for DCFS that was 

positive for marijuana at a very high level, and his visit with Ta. 

in the neonatal intensive care unit while smelling of marijuana,

were sufficient to sustain the drug use count against Father. 

Counsel for DCFS joined in the argument of minor’s counsel

regarding the drug use allegation against Father.

The juvenile court sustained the section 300 petition, 

including multiple counts pertaining to Mother’s conduct and the 

one count pertaining to Father’s substance abuse. The court
8

dismissed the counts against Father related to his alleged mental 

health issues.

The court then proceeded to disposition, stating it would 

consider the same evidence and matters subject to judicial notice 

from the jurisdiction hearing. The court ordered Ta. removed 

from both parents and placed in the care of DCFS. Over DCFS’s 

objection, DCFS was ordered to provide family reunification 

services to Father and Mother. Father was ordered to submit to 

random drug testing; if any test was positive, Father was ordered

to complete a rehabilitation program with random testing and 

aftercare.4 Father was granted monitored visitation for a 

minimum of four hours per week, with DCFS having discretion to 

liberalize the visits.

DISCUSSION

A. Father’s Challenge to the Jurisdictional Allegation 

Involving Substance Abuse

1. Father’s Appeal is Justiciable

DCFS initially argues that Father’s jurisdictional challenge 

is non-justiciable because of the sustained and unchallenged 

counts against Mother. “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 

juvenile 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 

4 If Father missed a test, the court indicated DCFS could 

present a walk-on request for further orders.
9

alleged statutory grounds for jurisdiction are supported by the 

evidence.” (In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 451.)

Our Supreme Court recently held that when a parent 

“demonstrate[s] a specific legal or practical consequence that 

would be avoided upon reversal of” a jurisdictional finding, an 

appeal is not moot. (In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 273.) We 

reject DCFS’s contention that the sustained drug use count 

against Father did not form the basis for the order removing Ta. 

from Father’s custody and placing the child elsewhere. Instead, 

we agree with Father that the sustained jurisdictional allegation 

against him did form the basis for the dispositional order that 

removed Ta. from Father’s custody, and restricted Father’s 

visitation, which continues to impact Father’s rights. The 

juvenile court ordered family reunification services for Father, 

instead of adopting DCFS’s recommendation to bypass family 

services, because Father was making efforts to address his drug 

use. The court’s dispositional orders included that Father was to 

submit to drug testing, with a full rehabilitation program ordered 

if any tests were missed or positive. Accordingly, Father’s appeal 

is justiciable.

2. Substantial Evidence Supports the Jurisdictional 

Finding Against Father

a. The Applicable Law

Father contends that substantial evidence does not support

the drug abuse allegation against him. In reviewing for 

substantial evidence, “We do not pass on the credibility of 

witnesses, attempt to resolve conflicts in the evidence or weigh 

the evidence. Rather, we draw all reasonable inferences in 

support of the findings, view the record favorably to the juvenile 

court’s order and affirm the order even if other evidence supports 
10

a contrary finding.” (In re James R. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 129, 

135.) However, “ ‘ “ ‘ “inferences that are the result of mere 

speculation or conjecture cannot support a finding.” ’ ” ’ ” (In re 

J.A. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 1036, 1046, italics omitted.)

A child may be declared a dependent of the juvenile court if 

“[t]he child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the 

child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness, as a result of 

. . . [¶] . . . [t]he failure or inability of the child’s parent . . . to 

adequately supervise or protect the child[, or] [¶] . . . [t]he 

inability of the parent . . . to provide regular care for the child due 

to the parent’s . . . substance abuse.” (§ 300, subd. (b)(1)(A) &

(D).) “The provision of a home environment free from the 

negative effects of substance abuse is a necessary condition for 

the safety, protection and physical and emotional well-being of 

the child.” (§ 300.2, subd. (a).)

“A jurisdiction finding under section 300, subdivision (b)(1), 

requires [DCFS] to prove three elements: (1) the parent’s . . . 

neglectful conduct or failure or inability to protect the child; 

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

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

L. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 591, 601.) “Although section 300 

requires proof the child is subject to the defined risk of harm at 

the time of the jurisdiction hearing [citations], the court need not 

wait until a child is seriously abused or injured to assume 

jurisdiction and take steps necessary to protect the child. 

[Citations.] The court may consider past events in deciding 

whether a child presently needs the court’s protection. 

[Citations.] A parent’s ‘ “[p]ast conduct may be probative of 

current conditions” if there is reason to believe that the conduct 

will continue.’ [Citations.] ‘To establish a defined risk of harm at 
11

the time of the hearing, there “must be some reason beyond mere 

speculation to believe the alleged conduct will recur.” ’ 

[Citation.]” (Id. at pp. 601-602.)

b. Substantial Evidence Supports the 

Jurisdictional Finding of Substance Abuse

Father argues there was not substantial evidence he was 

currently using marijuana, nor substantial evidence of a nexus 

between his alleged substance abuse and a substantial risk of 

serious physical harm to the minor child. We disagree with both 

contentions.

Substantial evidence supported the inference Father was 

currently using marijuana. Father had a history of narcotics use 

and distribution, including past convictions for drug possession 

and drug transportation. Although Father had completed a 90-

day treatment program, and had some negative tests, he tested 

positive for marijuana at a very high level on January 26, 2022,

while in that treatment program—a result that the juvenile court 

could reasonably construe as indicating something more 

troubling than recreational use, and that Father had not yet 

internalized the lessons of the treatment program. Father visited 

Ta. at the hospital the following day smelling of marijuana 

despite the child being in the neonatal intensive care unit with 

respiratory issues. Father admitted to marijuana use related to 

managing chronic pain, and his interview with DCFS suggested 

he intended to continue using marijuana for that reason. While 

we commend Father for seeking treatment and the progress 

demonstrated by his successful completion of the Skid Row 

Development program and his various negative tests, in 

reviewing for substantial evidence we “ ‘ “ ‘ordinarily look[ ] only 

at the evidence supporting the successful party, and disregard[ ] 
12

the contrary showing.’ ” ’ ” (In re I.W. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 

1517, 1527, disapproved on another ground in Conservatorship of 

O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1010, fn. 7.)

There was also substantial evidence of a nexus between 

Father’s marijuana use and a substantial risk of serious harm to 

the minor child. “[D]rug use or substance abuse, without more, is 

an insufficient ground to assert jurisdiction in dependency 

proceedings under section 300.” (In re L.W. (2019) 32 

Cal.App.5th 840, 849.) This, however, is not a matter involving 

substance abuse without more. Father tested positive for 

marijuana at a very high level while Ta. was in the intensive care 

unit, and showed up to the hospital smelling of marijuana. As 

the juvenile court noted, that was “kind of like . . . showing up at 

the hospital for a newborn strongly reeking of alcohol.” Father’s 

statements to DCFS suggested he thought he could schedule his 

marijuana use around his parenting duties—that he could 

“medicate everyday” despite caring for the child because he could 

impose a “cutoff time to take care” of Ta. But parenting an 

infant—particularly one with meaningful medical issues—does 

not come with a set schedule that permits such “cutoff time[s]” for 

intoxication. Construed as it must be in the light most favorable 

to the juvenile court’s findings, the evidence shows “the effect of 

[Father’s] substance abuse is not now confined to [his] private 

moments alone,” and that there was a substantial risk Father’s 

marijuana use would “spill[ ] over into areas that will pose a 

substantial risk of physical harm to” Ta. (In re L.W., supra, at 

p. 850.)

B. Substantial Evidence Supports the Removal Order

Before removing a child from a parent, the juvenile court

must find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the child would 
13

be at substantial risk of harm if returned home and there are no

reasonable means by which the child can be protected without

removal. (§ 361, subd. (c)(1).) Dispositional orders are reviewed 

for substantial evidence, “keeping in mind that the trial court 

was required to make its order based on the higher standard of 

clear and convincing evidence.” (In re Ashly F. (2014) 225 

Cal.App.4th 803, 809.)

Father’s substantial evidence arguments regarding the 

removal order repeat the same contentions discussed above 

regarding the jurisdictional finding based on substance abuse. 

Because we do not find those arguments persuasive, we likewise 

reject Father’s contention that substantial evidence does not 

support the finding that Ta. would be at substantial risk of harm 

if returned to Father’s care, and that there were no reasonable 

means to protect Ta. without removal. There was substantial 

evidence that Father’s participation in services, while laudable, 

had not yet reached a level of efficacy that an infant like Ta. 

could be safely maintained in Father’s care.

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s jurisdiction and disposition orders are 

affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

WEINGART, J.

We concur:

ROTHSCHILD, P. J. CHANEY, J.