Filed 1/27/21 In re Nathaniel G. CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

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

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

has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re NATHANIEL G., et al., Persons

Coming Under the Juvenile Court 

Law.

 B303973

 (Los Angeles County

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CRISTIAN G.,

Defendant and Appellant;

NATHANIEL G., et al.,

Minors and Respondents.

 Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP01712A-B)

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, Martha Matthews, Judge and Robin Kessler, Judge Pro 

Tempore. Affirmed.
2

Keiter Appellate Law and Mitchell Keiter, under 

appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

Janette Freeman Cochran, under appointment by the Court 

of Appeal, for Minors and Respondents.

_________________________________

Appellant Cristian G. (father) appeals from the juvenile 

court’s January 6, 2020 orders continuing jurisdiction over his 

children, Nathaniel (born 2013) and Evelyn (born 2015) under 

Welfare and Institutions Code sections 300 and 364.1 We affirm 

the orders.

BACKGROUND

Prior appeal

In a prior appeal, this court affirmed the juvenile court’s 

orders establishing dependency jurisdiction over Nathaniel and 

Evelyn under section 300, subdivision (b), based on father’s 

marijuana use; his violation of a court order requiring monitored 

visitation between the children and their mother, Martha C. 

(mother); and mother’s substance abuse. We also affirmed the 

juvenile court’s dispositional orders. (In re N.G. (Oct. 7, 2020, 

B299550 [nonpub. opn.].) The dispositional orders placed the 

children with father in the paternal grandmother’s home and 

required father to complete a parenting program, to submit to 10 

random drug and alcohol tests, and to enroll in a drug 

rehabilitation program with random testing if father had an 

unexcused missed test or a positive test for anything other than 

decreasing levels of marijuana.

___________________________________________________________

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code.
3

The court ordered mother to enroll in a drug rehabilitation 

program with aftercare, weekly random drug and alcohol testing, 

individual counseling to address case issues, and a parenting 

program. Mother was accorded monitored visits with the 

children.

Current appeal

In January 2020, the Los Angeles County Department of 

Children and Family Services (the Department) reported that the 

children remained placed with father in the paternal 

grandmother’s home. Father had full-time employment that kept 

him away from the home from 2 p.m. to 12 a.m. He got the 

children ready for school in the morning and took them to school. 

After school, the children were cared for by two paternal aunts 

who also lived in the home. The paternal grandmother, who was

the children’s primary caregiver, prepared dinner, bathed the 

children, and put them to bed.

Mother had not been in contact with the Department for 

three months when she met with the social worker in November 

2019. She had moved out of Los Angeles County and had been 

employed for nine months. Mother said she was not using any 

drugs and denied ever having a drug problem.

Mother said she visited with the children at the paternal 

grandmother’s home or at a park near the paternal 

grandmother’s home. Nathaniel reported, however, on two 

separate occasions that he had been to mother’s “new home.” He 

became evasive when the social worker questioned him further 

about visiting mother’s home. The social worker expressed 

concern that mother was having unmonitored contact with the 

children, in violation of the order for monitored visitation. 

Mother had not enrolled in a drug program or complied with any 
4

part of her case plan. The Department concluded the children 

were at high risk of future neglect or abuse by mother if they 

were to be returned to her care.

Father had also failed to enroll in any court ordered 

programs, insisting that he should not be required to do so. 

Although neither parent had complied with their respective case 

plans or taken identifiable steps to mitigate the problems that led 

to dependency jurisdiction, the Department concluded the 

children were not at risk of harm and recommended terminating 

jurisdiction.2

At the January 6, 2020 review hearing, the children’s 

counsel asked the juvenile court to retain jurisdiction, pointing 

out that father had failed to comply with any part of his case plan 

and that the Department’s reports indicated the children were 

having unmonitored visits with mother. The juvenile court 

agreed, noting that neither parent had complied with their 

respective case plans, and there was evidence that mother was 

having unmonitored contact with the children. The court 

extended jurisdiction for an additional six months and modified 

its prior order requiring father to complete 10 on demand drug 

tests. The juvenile court ordered father to start a new series of 

five consecutive negative drug tests, showing nothing other than 

decreasing levels of marijuana. The court ordered the 

Department to provide appropriate parenting referrals for father.

This appeal followed.

___________________________________________________________

2 In light of its recommendation, the Department is not a 

party to this appeal. The children are the respondents in this 

appeal.
5

DISCUSSION

I. Applicable law and standard of review

Section 364, subdivision (c) provides:

“After hearing any evidence presented by the social 

worker, the parent, the guardian, or the child, the 

court shall determine whether continued supervision 

is necessary. The court shall terminate its 

jurisdiction unless the social worker or his or her 

department establishes by a preponderance of 

evidence that the conditions still exist which would 

justify initial assumption of jurisdiction under 

Section 300, or that those conditions are likely to 

exist if supervision is withdrawn. Failure of the 

parent or guardian to participate regularly in any 

court ordered treatment program shall constitute 

prima facie evidence that the conditions which 

justified initial assumption of jurisdiction still exist 

and that continued supervision is necessary.”

“[T]he juvenile court may retain jurisdiction 

notwithstanding the recommendation of, or facts solely submitted 

by, the Department if there is a preponderance of evidence that 

the conditions are such to justify that retention.” (In re J.F. 

(2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 202, 210 (J.F.).) We review the juvenile 

court’s orders under section 364 for substantial evidence. (Id. at 

p. 209.)

II. Substantial evidence supports the order for continued 

jurisdiction

Substantial evidence supports the order for continued 

jurisdiction. The undisputed evidence shows that both father and 
6

mother failed to participate in any court ordered programs, 

“prima facie evidence that the conditions which justified initial 

assumption of jurisdiction still exist and that continued 

supervision is necessary.” (§ 364, subd. (c).)

Father’s reliance on conflicting or ambiguous statements by 

Nathaniel regarding the child’s visits with mother is insufficient 

to overturn the juvenile court’s finding that the monitored 

visitation order had been violated. Under the applicable 

standard of review, an appellate court does not reweigh the 

evidence, evaluate the credibility of witnesses, or draw inferences 

contrary to the findings of the juvenile court. (J.F., supra, 228 

Cal.App.4th at p. 209.)

Father’s challenge to the orders requiring him to drug test 

and to participate in a parenting program is moot. We affirmed 

the dispositional orders for drug testing and parenting in father’s 

prior appeal. (In re N.G. (Oct. 7, 2020, B299550 [nonpub. opn.].)

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s January 6, 2020 orders are affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

 ________________________, J.

 CHAVEZ

We concur:

___________________, Acting P. J. ________________________, J.

ASHMANN-GERST HOFFSTADT