Filed 5/24/13 In re Roger G. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 ROGER G., a Person Coming Under 

the Juvenile Court Law.

B243433

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. CK92943)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND 

FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MARIA R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 

D. Zeke Zeidler, Judge. Affirmed.

Janice A. Jenkins, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel and 

Navid Nakhjavani, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_____________________
2

INTRODUCTION

Appellant Maria R. (mother) appeals the juvenile court‟s dispositional order 

removing her son, Roger G., from her physical custody. The essential issue on appeal is 

whether there was substantial evidence supporting the order. We conclude that there was 

such evidence.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. Roger’s Family

Roger was born in April 2011. At the time, mother was 16 years old. Roger‟s 

biological father, Rodger G. (father), was twelve.

Mother lived with her own mother, Soledad C. (maternal grandmother), maternal 

grandmother‟s boyfriend, and mother‟s four younger siblings in a four-bedroom house in 

Los Angeles they shared with three other families. Mother‟s entire family, including 

Roger, slept in one bedroom.

When Roger was born, father lived with his mother, Rita A. (paternal 

grandmother), Rodger G., Sr., and father‟s five younger siblings in a home in Los 

Angeles. At some point before April 2012, Roger and his family moved to a fourbedroom house in Indianapolis, Indiana.

Before these proceedings commenced, maternal grandmother and Alberta E., a 

babysitter, helped mother care for Roger. While father lived in Los Angeles, paternal 

grandmother also frequently provided the child with care. At times, mother left Roger 

with paternal grandmother for a couple of days.

2. The Initial Referral to the Department and the Department’s 

Attempts to Assist Mother in Caring for Roger Before Filing a Juvenile 

Dependency Petition

On January 25, 2012, respondent Los Angeles County Department of Children and 

Family Services (the Department) received a referral regarding mother‟s alleged physical 

abuse of Roger. The Department commenced an investigation, and conducted interviews 

with maternal grandmother, mother and Alberta. The findings of this investigation and 
3

the Department‟s efforts to assist mother without filing a juvenile dependency petition, 

were set forth in a detention report and an addendum report, both dated April 9, 2012. 

According to maternal grandmother, mother at times became angry with Roger 

and physically abused him. Mother allegedly hit Roger‟s hands, arms and legs, and 

shoved the child on the bed. Maternal grandmother also stated that mother sometimes 

left home in the evenings without her parents‟ permission and without Roger, and did not 

return until 10:00 or 11:00 p.m.

Mother conceded to the Department that she did not “get along” with maternal 

grandmother, and thus frequently spent time outside her home at nights. She claimed, 

however, that she took Roger with her when she left home. Mother also admitted that she 

“shoved” Roger on one occasion when he was crying. Additionally, mother admitted 

using “G,” which is a form of methamphetamine.

Roger‟s baby sitter, Alberta, stated that mother would “give the child to her with a 

dirty diaper and at times he had a diaper rash.” Alberta also stated that Roger did not 

have enough clothing, so Alberta obtained donated clothing for him. By February 2012, 

Alberta reported, she no longer babysat for Roger because “there have been too many 

incidents.”

In order to address its concerns about mother‟s care for Roger, the Department 

created a “safety plan.” Under this plan, mother agreed to not leave home with Roger or 

care for him inside the home “without another adult” present. Maternal grandmother and 

a roommate, Guadalupe B., agreed to assist mother in caring for Roger. Mother also 

agreed that she would obtain services through an organization called Bienvenidos.

On April 2, 2012, a Department social worker interviewed mother and maternal 

grandmother to check on mother‟s progress. Mother appeared somewhat ambivalent 

about her role as Roger‟s primary caregiver. She asked the social worker about “giving” 

Roger to the Department. Mother asked if she did so, whether Roger would live with his 

paternal relatives. When the social worker asked mother why she made this inquiry, 

mother stated that she was “not being supported [by] anyone.” Mother reported that 

maternal grandmother had told her she would not help her with diapers, wipes, formula 
4

and the like. After further discussion, mother informed the social worker that she would 

not participate in services offered by Bienvenidos.

Maternal grandmother reported that mother was once again hitting Roger‟s hands, 

arms and legs. When the social worker asked mother about this accusation, she admitted 

hitting Roger, but stated that she only hit him “softly.” Mother also said that she did not 

“remember” promising the social worker that she would not hit or shove Roger. 

In response to the social worker‟s question about why she was hitting Roger, mother 

shrugged her shoulders.

Maternal grandmother also reported that mother was again leaving Roger home 

alone at nights. On March 30, 2012, for example, mother left Roger on the bed at about 

1:00 a.m. Maternal grandmother saw mother talking to an adult male outside the home. 

Mother did not return until about 3:00 a.m. Maternal grandmother stated mother did not 

understand that she should not leave the child alone.

Additionally, maternal grandmother stated that mother‟s behavior was changing, 

and that mother was smoking something. When the Department social worker asked 

mother about this matter, mother initially denied smoking anything. She then admitted 

smoking “chronic,” a type of marijuana, and becoming “faded” (high) two days earlier. 

When the social worker asked mother whether she wanted to keep her child, mother 

shrugged her shoulders.

On April 4, 2012, the Department social worker interviewed paternal grandmother 

and father. Paternal grandmother suspected mother used drugs because she saw her two 

or three times with red, small eyes. Both paternal grandmother and father stated that they 

would be willing to take custody of Roger if a DNA test confirmed father‟s paternity.

On April 4, 2012, the Department social worker organized a meeting regarding 

mother‟s care for Roger with mother, maternal grandmother, a paternal aunt, and a 

community service provider from the Latino Family Center. At the conclusion of the 

meeting, the social worker determined that it was in the best interests of Roger for the 

Department to detain him. Roger was placed with foster parents.
5

3. Juvenile Dependency Petition

On April 9, 2012, the Department filed a juvenile dependency petition. At the 

time, Roger was almost one year old. The petition alleged that the juvenile court could 

assert jurisdiction over Roger under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, 

subdivisions (a) [serious physical abuse] and (b) [failure to protect].1

On the same day the petition was filed, the juvenile court entered an order finding 

that the Department showed a prima facie case for detaining Roger. The court also 

ordered that mother and father be allowed to visit Roger, with an approved monitor 

present, twice a week. Additionally, the court ordered the Department to facilitate a 

paternity test for father.

4. June 12, 2012, Jurisdiction/Disposition Report

In May 2012, a Department social worker conducted additional interviews of 

mother, father, maternal grandmother and paternal grandmother regarding mother‟s 

physical abuse of Roger, her neglect of and failure to protect the child, and mother‟s 

history of drug use. These interviews were summarized in a jurisdiction/disposition 

report dated June 12, 2012.

a. Physical Abuse

Mother stated, “Yes I would hit him [Roger] with an open hand since he was 

small.” She further stated that she would hit Roger as “a joke to have fun,” and that 

Roger would laugh when she hit him. Mother also stated that when Roger was about 

seven months old, she grabbed him and shoved him to the bed.

Maternal grandmother and paternal grandmother both stated that mother became 

easily frustrated and overwhelmed with Roger, and when she did so she hit or shoved 

him. Both grandmothers also reported that mother was “constantly” yelling at Roger.

 

1

Except as otherwise indicated, all future section references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code.
6

b. Neglect and Failure to Protect

Maternal grandmother reported that the child had fallen out of a bed about two or 

three times as a result of mother leaving him alone on the bed. She also stated that 

mother would leave Roger about two or three times a week during the night. Father 

reported that mother left child with him and paternal grandmother at least three times, for 

about three days at a time without stating where she was. Paternal grandmother reported 

there were many times when mother or the maternal grandmother would drop off the 

child because they could not provide care for him.

Mother denied that Roger had ever fallen out of bed, that she would leave Roger 

alone at night, and that she left Roger with paternal grandmother overnight. The 

Department concluded: “Due to the mother‟s immaturity and inability to provide care 

and supervision of the young child and his behaviors there have also been several times 

when she [mother] leaves the child without making proper child care arrangements.”

c. Drug Use

Father stated that on at least two occasions he saw mother smoke marijuana while 

she was pregnant with Roger. Maternal grandmother stated that mother admitted to her 

that she smoked marijuana. Mother said that her use of “chronic” was an isolated 

incident in April 2012. When asked if she was able to provide care for the child after she 

smoked, she responded, “I didn‟t feel stupid it was like whatever.”

d. Mother’s Participation in Family Reunification Services

Mother enrolled in a parenting class and substance abuse program. She passed 

four drug tests. She also attended all scheduled monitored visits with Roger.

5. The June 12, 2012, Trial and Order

On June 12, 2012, the juvenile court held a trial regarding its jurisdiction over 

Roger. Mother testified. She denied ever hitting Roger on his hands, arms or legs, or 

ever shoving the child on the bed.

Mother also stated that she used “chronic” marijuana on one occasion and “G” 

(methamphetamine) once in May 2011. She denied using illicit drugs on any other 

occasions.
7

Additionally, mother testified that she only left Roger unattended on one occasion 

when maternal grandmother was “yelling” at her. Mother stated that on that occasion she 

walked outside of the house for 15-20 minutes, and waited for maternal grandmother to 

calm down before returning.

On cross-examination, mother initially denied using chronic when she had Roger 

with her, but later conceded that Roger was with her at the time. Mother also denied 

smoking marijuana when she was pregnant, and stated that the last time she used drugs 

was in March 2011. When the Department‟s attorney pointed out that she was pregnant 

in March 2011, mother stated that the last time she used drugs was in March 2010.

At the end of the hearing, the juvenile court amended the juvenile dependency 

petition according to proof. The court sustained two counts under section 300, 

subdivision (b), the first based on mother‟s physical abuse of Roger and her failure to 

adequately supervise the child, and the second based on her history of illicit drug use. 

The court dismissed the remaining counts in the petition.

6. The July 2012, Department Reports

On July 11 and July 19, 2012, the Department filed “last minute information” 

reports with the juvenile court. The first report indicated that the DNA tests revealed the 

probability of father‟s paternity was 99.99 percent. In light of the report, the court found 

that Rodger G. was Roger‟s biological father. 

In the second report, the Department stated that it “does not believe it is in the best 

interest for the child to be released to his father.” The report also stated that due to a 

remodeling project, only two of the four bedrooms in father‟s house in Indiana were 

available at that time.

7. The August 8, 2012, Hearing and Order

The juvenile court held a dispositional hearing on August 8, 2012, at which time 

mother testified again. Mother stated that she continued to attend substance abuse and 

parenting classes, as well as individual counseling. Mother also stated that she was on a 

waiting list to enroll Roger in her high school‟s daycare program. 
8

When mother was asked why her son‟s case was in juvenile court, she stated: 

“Because my mother did a report with the worker that I was not taking good care of him.” 

Mother denied, however, that Roger ever fell off of a bed or that she ever shoved her son. 

She also denied ever using any illegal drugs in the past, including chronic, and claimed 

that she was in a substance abuse program only because her mother wrongfully 

“suspected” that she used drugs. The court recognized that mother had 10 negative drug 

tests.

Additionally, mother denied going out late at night and leaving Roger home alone 

with maternal grandmother. She claimed that when she went out of the house, she 

“always” took Roger with her. 

At the end of the hearing, the juvenile court expressed doubts about the 

truthfulness of much of mother‟s testimony. The court stated: “This case has 

backtracked so badly now she‟s in denial that the child was left unsupervised, has ever 

fallen off of a bed, that it‟s amazing how far back we have slid in this case.” 

In an order dated August 8, 2012, the juvenile court declared Roger a dependent 

child of the court. It also found by clear and convincing evidence that there was a 

substantial danger to the physical or mental health of Roger if he was not removed from 

mother‟s physical custody, and that there was no reasonable means to protect Roger 

without removing him from mother. The court placed Roger with father on the condition 

that father reside with paternal grandmother or in another approved home.

Mother filed a timely appeal of the August 8, 2012, order.

ISSUE

The issue is whether there was substantial evidence supporting the juvenile court‟s 

August 8, 2012, order removing Roger from mother‟s physical custody.
9

DISCUSSION

Section 361, subdivision (c) provides that a dependent child may not be taken 

from the physical custody of a parent with whom he resided at the time the petition was 

initiated, unless the juvenile court finds by clear and convincing evidence that one or 

more of certain enumerated circumstances exists. One such circumstance is the 

following: “There is or would be a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, 

protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor if the minor were returned 

home, and there are no reasonable means by which the minor‟s physical health can be 

protected without removing the minor from the minor‟s parent‟s . . . physical custody.” 

(§ 361, subd. (c)(1).)

The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that the requirements 

of section 361, subdivision (c)(1) were satisfied. We review this finding under the 

substantial evidence test.2 (In re Henry V. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 522, 529.)

“The term „substantial evidence‟ means such relevant evidence as a reasonable 

mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion; it is evidence which is reasonable 

in nature, credible, and of solid value.” (In re J.K. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1433.) 

In determining whether there is substantial evidence, “we draw all reasonable inferences 

from the evidence to support the findings and orders of the dependency court; we review 

the record in the light most favorable to the court‟s determinations; and we note that 

 

2

Some cases have held that an appellate court employs the substantial evidence test 

“bearing in mind the heightened burden of proof.” (See e.g. In re Kristin H. (1996) 

46 Cal.App.4th 1635, 1654; accord In re Hailey T. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 139, 146.) 

Other cases have held that on appeal, the “clear and convincing test disappears and „the 

usual rule of conflicting evidence is applied giving full effect to the respondent‟s 

evidence, however slight, and disregarding the appellant‟s evidence, however strong.‟ ” 

(See e.g. In re I.W. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 1517, 1526; accord In re Marriage of E & 

Stephen P. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 983, 989.) Whether we “bear in mind” the standard 

of proof in the juvenile court does not have a practical effect on our analysis in this case. 

We conclude that under either line of cases, there was substantial evidence to support the 

juvenile court‟s findings.
10

issues of fact and credibility are the province of the trial court.” (In re Heather A. (1996) 

52 Cal.App.4th 183, 193.)

1. There Was Substantial Evidence Supporting the Juvenile Court’s Finding 

That There was a Substantial Danger to the Physical or Emotional WellBeing of Roger If He Were Returned to Mother’s Physical Custody

As we described ante, the Department filed reports in April, June and July 2012 

summarizing its investigation, including its numerous interviews with mother, maternal 

grandmother, paternal grandmother, father and others regarding mother‟s care for Roger 

and mother‟s other conduct relating to her ability to care for him. This evidence, when 

viewed in a light most favorable to the juvenile court‟s order, was sufficient for a 

reasonable juvenile court to find that there was a substantial danger to the physical or 

emotional well-being of Roger if he were returned to mother‟s physical custody at the 

time of the August 8, 2012, dispositional hearing.

The reports indicated that mother had repeatedly physically abused Roger by 

hitting him in the hands, arms, and legs, and by shoving him on the bed. According to 

Roger‟s grandmothers, mother engaged in this behavior when she became frustrated and 

had a difficult time caring for Roger. Although mother denied physically abusing Roger 

at the jurisdictional and dispositional hearings, a reasonable juvenile court judge could 

have determined that her credibility was undermined by her previous admissions to a 

Department social worker to the contrary. 

The reports also indicated that mother had a significant history of using the illicit 

drugs of marijuana and methamphetamine. She repeatedly used drugs during her 

pregnancy with Roger, while she had custody of the child, and even after these 

proceedings commenced. Mother denied ever using illicit drugs at the dispositional 

hearing. But a reasonable juvenile court judge could have determined that her credibility 

was undermined by her previous admissions of using drugs at the jurisdictional hearing 

and to a Department social worker.
11

Additionally, the reports indicated that mother engaged in a pattern of neglecting 

Roger. On two or three occasions Roger fell off the bed while mother left him alone. 

Mother also repeatedly left home without Roger in the evening or the middle of the night 

without arranging for child care.

The reports further indicated that underlying mother‟s physical abuse, drug abuse 

and neglect, was her lack of maturity, and the troubled relationship she had with her own 

mother. Mother at times expressed an ambivalence regarding her role as a parent. A 

reasonable juvenile court could have concluded that mother, who was still a child herself, 

was simply unprepared to assume parental responsibilities, even with the assistance of 

her family. Although mother had taken some positive steps in addressing her problems, 

there was substantial evidence that at the time of the dispositional hearing, there was a 

substantial danger to the physical or emotional well-being of Roger if he were returned to 

mother‟s physical custody.

2. There Was Substantial Evidence Supporting the Juvenile Court’s Finding 

That There Was No Reasonable Means By Which Roger’s Physical Health 

Could Be Protected Without Removing Him from Mother’s Physical 

Custody

Mother contends that the juvenile court erroneously found that there were no 

reasonable means to protect Roger without removing him from mother‟s physical 

custody. At the time of the dispositional hearing, mother‟s application to enroll Roger in 

child care at mother‟s high school was pending. Mother argues that because the child 

care providers, as well as Department social workers who could periodically visit her, 

were “mandated reporters” (see Pen. Code, § 11165.7), Roger could safely be left in her 

physical custody. We reject this argument.
12

Roger‟s physical and emotional well-being were endangered by mother‟s care for 

him, or lack of care, in the evenings and nights. Mother had a practice of leaving the 

child alone and using illicit drugs at that time. She also repeatedly physically abused the 

child without leaving bruises or other marks a mandated reporter could observe. 

Moreover, the juvenile court could have reasonably concluded that at the time of the 

dispositional hearing, mother did not accept responsibility for her physical abuse, drug 

abuse and neglect, as she denied virtually any wrongdoing and attempted to blame 

maternal grandmother for her own shortcomings as a parent. Accordingly, there was 

substantial evidence supporting the juvenile court‟s conclusion that there were no 

reasonable means to protect Roger without removing him from mother‟s physical 

custody.

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court‟s order dated August 8, 2012, is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

KITCHING, J.

We concur: 

KLEIN, P. J.

CROSKEY, J.