Filed 1/5/22 In re A.H. CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 FOUR

In re A.H. et al., Persons

Coming Under the Juvenile 

Court Law.

B310939

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF 

CHILDREN AND FAMILY 

SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

D.H.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. 

20CCJP00688

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Stephen C. Marpet, Commissioner. 

Reversed in part. 

Leslie A. Berry, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Appellant.

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

Assistant County Counsel, Tracey Dodds, Principal Deputy 

County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

INTRODUCTION

The juvenile court exercised jurisdiction over A.H. and 

B.H., the children of M.H. (mother)1 and D.H. (father), under 

Welfare and Institutions Code2 section 300, subdivisions (a) and 

(b). The juvenile court found the children were at substantial risk 

of serious physical harm due to their parents’ history of domestic 

violence and mother’s abuse of alcohol. 

The juvenile court removed the children from their parents 

and ordered father to participate in individual counseling, 

parenting classes, a domestic violence program, a psychological 

evaluation if his therapist deemed it appropriate, and weekly and 

random drug testing. It further ordered that if father had any 

unexcused missed tests, the Department of Children and Family 

Services (Department) could request an order requiring him to 

participate in a full drug treatment program with further testing, 

and that if father had any “dirty” tests, he would be required to 

participate in a full drug treatment program with further testing. 

On appeal, father solely challenges the portions of the 

dispositional order regarding his participation in drug testing 

and a full drug treatment program. He argues that because the 

record does not reflect his medicinal use of marijuana presented 

any risk of harm to the children, affected their well-being, or was

related in any way to the reasons they were declared dependents

of the court, the juvenile court erred by requiring his 

participation in those services. We agree with his argument and 

reverse the challenged portions of the dispositional order. 

1 Mother is not a party to this appeal. 

2 All further undesignated statutory references are to the 

Welfare and Institutions Code. 
3

BACKGROUND

Mother and father are the parents of two children, A.H. 

and B.H. At the time this case was initiated, A.H. was 14 years 

old and B.H. was 10 years old. Since moving from Texas to 

California in 2017, the family has resided in a hotel room located 

in Wilmington.

The family came to the Department’s attention in January 

2020, when it received a referral alleging the children were being 

neglected by mother and emotionally abused by father. The 

reporting party stated the parents were involved in “ongoing 

domestic violence” and “engage in physical altercations in the 

presence of the children.” The reporting party further related 

that three months prior, there was an incident in which “father 

slammed mother against a wall and mother collapsed to the 

floor[,]” where she “was unconscious for ‘ten minutes or so.’” 

Following an investigation, on February 4, 2020, the 

Department filed a petition on the children’s behalf under section 

300, subdivisions (a) and (b). The petition alleged the children 

were at risk of serious physical harm due to: (1) ongoing domestic 

violence between the parents in their presence (counts a-1 

and b- 1); and (2) father’s abuse of marijuana, which “render[ed] 

[him] incapable of providing regular care and supervision of the 

children[,]” and mother’s failure to protect them from father’s 

marijuana abuse (count b-2). 

On March 16, 2020, the Department filed its first amended 

petition. In addition to reasserting the counts initially pled, the 

amended petition alleged the children were at risk of serious 

physical harm due to mother’s abuse of alcohol and father’s 

failure to protect them from her alcohol abuse (count b-3). It

further alleged the parents placed A.H. “at risk of developmental 
4

and emotional harm and damage[ ]” because they “failed to enroll 

[A.H.] in school for three years and failed to ensure she received a 

proper education or provide access to education” (count b-4). 

At the adjudication hearing held on August 18, 2020, father 

testified on his own behalf. After hearing his testimony and 

argument from counsel, the juvenile court sustained the first 

amended petition as pled, declared the children dependents of the 

court under section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b), and removed 

them from their parents under section 361, subdivision (c)(1). The 

court ordered father to participate in a 52-week domestic violence 

program, parenting classes, individual counseling, and a 

psychological assessment if his therapist deemed it appropriate. 

It also ordered father to participate in weekly and random drug 

testing, and “admonish[ed] . . . father that his marijuana levels 

are to go down and out.” Moreover, the court ordered that “if any 

test is missed or dirty,” father must complete a full drug 

treatment program with additional testing. 

On August 27, 2020, father filed an application for 

rehearing from the jurisdictional and dispositional findings under 

section 252.3 In support, father argued the juvenile court erred by 

3 Section 252 provides, in relevant part: “At any time prior to 

the expiration of 10 days after service of a written copy of the 

order and findings of a referee, a minor or his or her parent or 

guardian or, in cases brought pursuant to Section 300, the county 

welfare department may apply to the juvenile court for a 

rehearing. That application may be directed to all or to any 

specified part of the order or findings, and shall contain a 

statement of the reasons the rehearing is requested. If all of the 

proceedings before the referee have been taken down by an 

official reporter, the judge of the juvenile court may, after reading 
5

sustaining counts b-2 and b-4. On September 16, 2020, the 

application was granted with respect to the adjudication of counts 

b-2 and b-4. 

Rehearing took place on November 30, 2020. There, the 

Honorable Craig S. Barnes found that based on the evidence, 

father’s use of marijuana “seem[ed] to be consistent with the legal 

use of cannabis[,]” and that he did not appear to use it “in a way 

that seemed to be inappropriate, or putting the children at 

substantial risk of harm.” He therefore dismissed count b-2. 

Judge Barnes also dismissed count b-4, finding the Department 

did not “me[e]t its burden on that score.” A new disposition 

hearing before the commissioner who presided over the initial 

adjudication hearing was set for January 11, 2021. 

Following a continuance, the disposition hearing was held

on February 1, 2021. There, the juvenile court again declared the 

children dependents of the court under section 300 and removed 

them from both parents under section 361, subdivision (c)(1). The 

court ordered father to participate in individual counseling, 

parenting classes, a domestic violence program, a psychological 

assessment if recommended by his therapist, and weekly and 

random drug testing. The court further ordered that 

“[i]f . . . father tests dirty[,] he will need to enroll in a substance 

abuse program and continue to test[,]” and that [i]f . . . father has 

any unexcused missed tests[,] [the Department] may walk the 

matter on to possibly request a drug program for . . . father[.]” 

Father timely appealed. 

the transcript of those proceedings, grant or deny the

application.” 
6

DISCUSSION

I. Governing Principles and Standard of Review 

In general, “[a]t the dispositional hearing, the juvenile 

court must order child welfare services for the minor and the 

minor’s parents to facilitate reunification of the family. 

[Citations.] The court has broad discretion to determine what 

would best serve and protect the child’s interest and to fashion a 

dispositional order in accord with its discretion. [Citations.]” 

(In re Christopher H. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1006.) “Of 

course, the juvenile court’s discretion in fashioning reunification 

orders is not unfettered. Its orders must be ‘reasonable’ and 

‘designed to eliminate those conditions that led to the court’s 

finding that the child is a person described by Section 300.’ 

[Citation.] ‘The reunification plan “‘must be appropriate for each 

family and be based on the unique facts relating to that family.’” 

[Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (In re Nolan W. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1217, 

1229.) 

Where a parent’s substance abuse is concerned, “[t]he 

juvenile court has authority to require a parent to submit to 

substance abuse treatment as part of a reunification plan as long 

as the treatment is designed to address a problem that prevents 

the child’s safe return to parental custody.” (In re Nolan W., 

supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 1229.) “[W]hen a parent accepts 

[reunification] services, and when substance abuse treatment is 

reasonably related to the minor’s welfare, the juvenile court has 

authority to order the parent to participate. [Citations.]” (Ibid.)

“We review the juvenile court’s disposition orders for an

abuse of discretion[.] [Citation.]” (In re K.T. (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 

20, 25; In re Christopher H., supra, 50 Cal.App.5th at p. 1006.)
7

We note that despite the well-settled principles above 

governing the applicable standard of review, father contends we 

should review the challenged portions of the juvenile court’s 

dispositional order de novo. In support of his position, however, 

he has not cited any pertinent legal authority. Accordingly, we 

conclude father has forfeited his contention on this point 

(see Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 

852 [appellate courts may treat an argument as forfeited “[w]hen 

an appellant fails to raise a point, or asserts it but fails to support 

it with reasoned argument and citations to authority[ ]”]), and 

apply the abuse of discretion standard in addressing his 

challenge to the dispositional order.

II. Analysis 

Father’s sole contention on appeal is that the juvenile court 

erred by requiring him to participate in weekly and random drug 

testing, permitting the Department to request his enrollment in a 

full drug treatment program and further testing if he had any 

unexcused missed tests, and requiring him to participate in a full 

drug treatment program and further testing if he had a “dirty” 

test. In support, he contends the record reflects his legal, 

medicinal use of marijuana was unrelated to the grounds upon 

which the juvenile court exercised jurisdiction, did not place the 

children at risk of harm, and did not otherwise affect their wellbeing. As discussed below, we agree with his argument. 

A.H. and B.H. separately discussed father’s marijuana use 

during interviews with a Department social worker in March 

2020. A.H. related father smokes marijuana outside once or twice 

per week, that she has seen him smoke, and that he has told her 

he smokes marijuana. She related his marijuana use “‘helps 
8

him[ ] [and] makes him feel better.’” According to A.H., father 

“‘acts the same[ ]’” when he smokes marijuana. Similarly, B.H. 

related father uses marijuana outside, and although she has not 

seen him do so, she “can smell [the scent of marijuana] every 

other day.” B.H. stated father “‘acts normal[ ]’” when he uses 

marijuana.

At the initial adjudication hearing, father testified about 

his marijuana use. He stated he began using marijuana in 2017 

“because [he] had to take some medicine for cancer . . . that 

cause[d] his body to spasm and [his] muscles to contract when [he 

was] sleeping[.]” Father testified he used marijuana “[j]ust before 

[he went] to bed” to “help [him ]. . . sleep better.” He “always 

smoke[d]” in a room at the hotel that was separate from his 

family’s residence and “never smoke[d] around [his] children.” He 

stated that because he worked evenings and went to sleep in the 

early morning, the children were “usually asleep[ ]” in their hotel 

room and were in mother’s care when he smoked. Father related 

he “always ke[pt] [the marijuana] on [him] in [his] pocket in [his] 

jeans[,]” and that he “never le[ft] it out for [the children] to see or 

to get.” 

The evidence discussed above is the only evidence in the 

record pertaining to father’s marijuana use. In short, the record

reflects father smoked marijuana for medicinal purposes outside 

the children’s presence, and that his marijuana use did not affect 

his behavior toward them. The evidence does not demonstrate 

father’s marijuana use facilitated, or was otherwise related to, his 

domestic violence issues with mother, mother’s alcohol abuse, his 

failure to protect the children from mother’s alcohol abuse, the 

parents’ failure to enroll A.H. in school upon arrival in California, 

their reported failure to provide the children with sufficient food, 
9

or their reported failure to ensure the children were seen by 

dental and medical professionals as needed.4 Thus, the record 

does not establish father’s marijuana use placed A.H. or B.H. at 

risk of harm, was related to the grounds upon which the court 

exercised jurisdiction over the children, or otherwise affected 

their well-being. Nor does the record demonstrate his marijuana 

use pertained to any of the “problem[s] . . . prevent[ing] the 

child[ren]’s safe return to parental custody[ ]” identified by the 

Department. (In re Nolan W., supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 1229.)

Additionally, the record does not demonstrate use or abuse 

of other drugs caused or contributed to father’s domestic violence 

or neglect of the children’s needs. At the initial adjudication 

hearing, father testified he did not use any other drugs. We 

acknowledge that in February 2020, father was arrested after 

mother contacted the police to report an incident of domestic 

violence, and the police “discovered an off-white substance 

resembling crystal [m]ethamphetamine in [his] . . . right jean coin 

pocket[ ]” while conducting their post-arrest search. The record, 

however, does not contain any evidence establishing the 

substance was subsequently tested or otherwise confirmed to be 

4 In January 2020, B.H. told the Department mother refused

to take her to the dentist even though B.H. told her that she had 

a toothache and was in pain. She also stated that since moving to 

California, her parents refused to take her to the doctor, even 

when she said she was not feeling well. B.H. further related that 

sometimes the family did not have enough food. In its 

jurisdiction/disposition report, the Department identified the 

parents’ failure to ensure the children had food and received 

proper medical care as concerns underlying its recommendation 

for the children’s removal, in addition to the concerns reflected in 

the first amended petition. 
10

methamphetamine. Nor does the record contain any evidence 

indicating father used methamphetamine on or around the date 

of his arrest, or at any other time, including when he had the 

children in his custody. Further, the children were not residing 

with their parents on the date of father’s arrest, as they were 

detained from them and temporarily placed in foster care on 

January 31, 2020. 

Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we conclude 

the existing evidence does not demonstrate father’s participation 

in weekly and random drug testing and/or a full drug treatment 

program is “‘designed to eliminate those conditions that led to the 

court’s finding that the [children are] . . . person[s] described by 

Section 300[,]’” “is designed to address a problem that prevents 

the child[ren’s] safe return to parental custody[,]” or “reasonably 

related to the [children’s] welfare[.]” (In re Nolan W., supra, 45 

Cal.5th at p. 1229.) The juvenile court therefore abused its 

discretion when it ordered him to participate in those services. 
11

DISPOSITION

The portions of the dispositional order requiring father to 

participate in weekly and random drug and alcohol testing, 

permitting the Department to request an order requiring father’s 

participation in a full drug treatment program with further 

testing in the event of an unexcused missed test, and requiring 

father to participate in a full treatment program with further 

testing in the event of a “dirty” test, are reversed. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

CURREY, J. 

We concur: 

MANELLA, P.J. 

MICON, J.*

* Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, assigned 

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

California Constitution.