Filed 1/27/21 In re I.K. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 I.K., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 B305495

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 18CCJP05754)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF 

CHILDREN AND FAMILY 

SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

E.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the jurisdictional order of the Superior Court 

of Los Angeles County, Mary E. Kelly, Judge. Affirmed. 

Mitchell Keiter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Appellant.
2

Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, Acting County Counsel, 

Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Sarah Vesecky, 

Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________

Mother, E.M., appeals from the juvenile court’s 

jurisdictional order taking jurisdiction over mother’s infant 

daughter I.K. I.K.’s two older sisters have been dependents of 

the juvenile court since before turning one year old. Mother 

argues that the juvenile court erred in taking jurisdiction over 

I.K. because no substantial evidence showed that mother posed a 

current risk to I.K. We reject mother’s argument for two reasons. 

First, because dependency jurisdiction is over the child, we must 

affirm the jurisdictional order based on the uncontested 

allegations sustained against father. Second, substantial 

evidence here did support the juvenile court’s jurisdictional order 

insofar as it sustained allegations against mother. There was 

evidence, despite mother’s arguments to the contrary, that at the 

time of the jurisdictional hearing, mother continued to suffer 

from the same substance abuse that caused her to lose custody of 

I.K.’s two older siblings and that mother’s substance abuse posed 

a risk to I.K. We thus affirm the juvenile court’s jurisdictional 

order. 

BACKGROUND

1. Mother Lived in Foster Care Until She Absconded 

With Her Eldest Child, A Dependent of the Juvenile 

Court

Mother was born in 1999, and entered foster care at the age 

of 12. Mother’s mother (maternal grandmother) used crystal 
3

methamphetamine and mother witnessed domestic violence in 

her family. Mother reported that her uncle touched her and that 

maternal grandmother beat her. Mother started smoking 

marijuana when she was 12 years old. Mother explained that she 

used marijuana to treat her anxiety and panic attacks. 

Mother’s eldest child, C.K., was born in November 2015. 

The juvenile court took jurisdiction over C.K. because mother’s 

marijuana abuse rendered mother unable to care for C.K. 

Although the exact date is unclear, it is undisputed that mother 

“abduct[ed]” C.K. The juvenile court had issued a warrant to 

arrest mother, apparently for absconding with C.K. “Mother 

reported that she spent time in jail until she returned [C.K.] to 

DCFS[’s] care.”1 

Eventually, the juvenile court terminated mother’s 

reunification services with C.K. Mother reported that C.K. was 

placed with her aunt, and mother was pleased with the 

placement. Mother “didn’t want to take the chance of not 

meeting her [C.K.’s] needs.” 

The social worker responsible for C.K.’s dependency

reported that mother was “constant[ly] AWOLing.” The social 

worker reported “mother’s history of being incapable of 

maintaining stable housing and not being able to care for herself 

demonstrates that she is not ready to care for a child.” 

2. Mother’s Child, L.K., Dies 

Mother’s second child, L.K. died in utero. Two days before 

his death, mother tested positive for marijuana. Maternal 

1 In the context of C.K.’s dependency case, a supplemental 

petition alleging domestic violence between mother and father 

was dismissed in the interest of justice. 
4

grandmother reported that “mother and father were involved in a 

physical altercation . . . which caused mother to miscarry.” 

3. Mother’s Child, P.K., Is a Dependent of the Juvenile 

Court

P.K. was born in 2018. The juvenile court assumed 

jurisdiction over P.K. because of mother’s substance abuse. The 

juvenile court sustained an allegation of general neglect after 

mother smoked marijuana while holding P.K. When 

investigating P.K.’s case, social workers observed that mother’s 

home was “unkempt, filthy, messy, and unsuitable . . . for an 

infant.” 

At the time the current dependency proceedings 

commenced, mother had monitored visits with P.K. Both C.K.

and P.K. were dependents of the juvenile court since they were 

four or five months old. 

4. DCFS Files a Petition Naming I.K.

On August 29, 2019, DCFS filed a Welfare and Institutions 

Code section 300 petition concerning then two-month old I.K.2 

The petition alleged that father failed to protect P.K. from 

mother’s substance abuse. The petition further alleged that 

father failed to protect P.K. when he should have known mother 

had absconded with C.K. and should have known mother’s 

whereabouts. The petition alleged that father failed to 

participate in juvenile court ordered services.

The petition further alleged that mother “secreted” C.K. 

from DCFS and the juvenile court and that C.K. is a dependent 

2 Undesignated statutory citations are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code. 
5

receiving permanent placement services due to mother and 

father’s conduct. The petition further alleged that mother has a 

history of substance abuse, including marijuana, which renders 

mother incapable of providing regular care and supervision for 

I.K. In addition, mother failed “regularly [to] submit to Juvenile 

Court ordered random drug testing.” Finally, the petition alleged 

that I.K.’s sibling was a dependent of the juvenile court based on 

mother’s substance abuse. 

5. DCFS’s Detention and Jurisdiction Reports

Prior to detention, I.K. resided with mother. Father did not 

live in the same home as mother. The juvenile court ordered I.K. 

detained from father only. The court permitted father monitored 

visitation three times a week. The juvenile court ordered that 

DCFS approve the monitor and that the visits occur in a DCFS 

approved setting. The court ordered I.K. “released to the home of 

mother.” 

DCFS reported that mother regularly missed court ordered 

testing for controlled substances. Mother missed three random 

tests in July 2019, three tests in August 2019, two tests in 

September 2019, and one test in October 2019. In six tests 

between August 6, 2019 and October 2, 2019, however, she tested 

negative. 

During an interview with a social worker, mother reported 

that she had stopped using marijuana in April 2019 (two months 

before I.K.’s birth). Mother, however, admitted using marijuana 

during the early stages of her pregnancy with I.K. Mother denied 

smoking marijuana in the presence of her children. Mother 

stated that she was diagnosed with depression and prescribed 

medication, but took the prescribed medication only once or twice 

because she did not like its side effects. Mother represented she 
6

participated in parenting classes. Mother reported the juvenile 

court had previously ordered her to complete random drug 

testing, individual counseling, and parenting classes. 

A facilitator from wraparound services3 reported that 

mother was diagnosed with major depressive disorder and 

generalized anxiety. The facilitator stated mother had regularly 

attended parenting classes and her parenting skills had

improved. Mother’s therapist reported that although mother had 

enrolled in therapy, the therapist had “not ‘seen mother in a 

while.’ ” The therapist also reported that mother had made 

progress in therapy but the therapist was unwilling to share 

mother’s therapeutic goals. The therapist believed mother could 

care for I.K. 

A social worker concluded: “Even though, mother is 

enrolled in parenting, individual counseling and random drug 

and alcohol testing, there are concerns regarding mother’s 

extensive substance abuse history, in utero drug exposure to 

child, mother’s failure to submit to random drug testing on a 

regular consistent basis, and inconsistent participation with 

individual counselling sessions and parenting. Given that 

mother is breastfeeding [I.K.], it is imperative that mother 

submits to random drug and alcohol test[ing] on a constant basis 

to ensure that mother is maintaining her sobriety.” Social 

workers further expressed concern that “[m]other seems unable

to recognize problems and threats that place the child’s safety at 

3 “ ‘Wraparound services’ means community-based 

intervention services that emphasize the strengths of the child 

and family and includes the delivery of coordinated, highly 

individualized unconditional services to address needs and 

achieve positive outcomes in their lives.” (§ 18251, subd. (d).) 
7

risk, despite participation in services in the past and present (i.e. 

Parenting Education program). Apparently, mother did not truly 

benefit and/or internalize the knowledge obtained in the 

parenting class given that mother was unable to recognize that 

her in utero drug exposure could have detrimental effects on her 

child’s physical and emotional health.” 

6. First Amended Petition

On November 1, 2019, DCFS filed a first amended petition. 

In addition to the allegations in the original petition, DCFS

alleged that mother has mental and emotional problems,

including depression and anxiety, that render her unable to care 

regularly for I.K. The petition further alleged that mother uses

marijuana to self-medicate. 

7. Second Amended Petition

In a second amended petition, DCFS added allegations that 

I.K.’s home “was found to be in a filthy, unsanitary, unsafe and 

hazardous condition. Such condition included presence of 

rodents, trash, garbage, filthy clothes, and bottles of urine.” The 

second amended petition averred mother and father have a 

history of engaging in violent altercations that jeopardize I.K.’s 

safety. According to the second amended petition, father has a 

history of substance abuse, including marijuana, rendering him 

incapable of caring for I.K. 

8. Additional DCFS Reports Following the Amended 

Petitions

An unidentified reporting party indicated that mother and 

father were living together in a rented room. I.K. was still living 
8

with mother at that time.4 Social workers were concerned 

because father was supposed to have only monitored visits with 

I.K. The unidentified caller reported that mother and father 

exposed I.K. to marijuana smoke in the rented room. The caller 

stated mother and father “trashed” the room they were renting, 

and there was trash and blunt wraps (papers to roll marijuana) 

on the floor. The caller also reported “father urinates in a bottle 

and leaves the bottle in the room.” The caller stated there were 

mice and dirty diapers in the room. The caller believed that 

father left a dead mouse in his living room. The reporting party 

was concerned that father left the heater on and that the trash in 

the room might catch on fire. 

When a social worker visited father’s home unannounced at 

8 a.m., mother answered the door in her pajamas and “was 

rubbing her eyes as if she just woke up.” Mother denied living 

there. The social worker observed the home to be “disorganized, 

dirty, messy” and containing I.K.’s clothing. Based on her 

observations, the social worker concluded that mother was living 

with father.

In January 2020, mother’s therapist reported that mother 

regularly attended therapy and learned mindfulness exercises. 

Mother was working on improving her stability and planned to 

move into a shelter at an unspecified date. I.K. often attended 

the therapy sessions with mother and appeared happy. 

I.K.’s paternal great grandmother reported that mother 

lived with her but did not always stay at paternal great 

4 The juvenile court denied DCFS’s request to detain I.K. 

from mother. 
9

grandmother’s home. At night, mother sometimes stayed with 

father. 

Mother reported that she attended therapy but was not 

attending her random drug tests. Mother explained that she did 

not attend the drug tests because she had lost her identification

card. 

Mother did not appear for her scheduled drug tests on 

January 3, January 8, January 16, January 17, January 18, or 

January 22, 2020. Mother did not appear for drug tests 

scheduled on March 6, March 10, or March 12, 2020 either. 

9. Hearing on Jurisdiction

At the jurisdictional hearing regarding I.K., a social worker 

testified that mother took parenting classes and participated in 

individual therapy. I.K. appeared healthy when the social 

worker observed her with mother. 

The social worker testified that when she visited father’s 

home, mother exited in pajama pants and the social worker 

learned that mother had arrived at 1:00 a.m. and was still 

present at approximately 8:15 a.m. The social worker also 

testified that she learned mother and father had been residing in 

father’s home since July 2019. On one visit, the social worker 

was able to look inside the home and saw children’s toys and 

clothing. She observed a bouncy chair and a bottle warmer. The 

social worker testified that the home was unsanitary. There 

were bags of clothing and trash on the floor and a heater on the 

ground. The social worker described the home as cluttered, 

making it difficult to walk around. The social worker observed 

that mother’s and father’s names were listed on an eviction 

notice. 
10

Mother denied living with father. Mother testified that her 

name may have been on the eviction notice because maternal 

grandmother was a friend of father’s landlord. Mother testified 

that social workers did not tell her she could not be at father’s 

home until after the social worker saw her in father’s home. 

Mother further testified that she had attended therapy 

consistently since April 2019 except for a period when she was 

changing therapists. Through dependency court services, mother 

also received weekly assistance with her school work and 

parenting issues. 

Mother denied any domestic violence between her and 

father. Mother testified she had not smoked marijuana since 

April 2019. She admitted she did not always participate in her 

court ordered random drug tests. According to mother, she did 

not always have the required identification or paperwork. 

Mother missed one test because she was in court. Mother 

acknowledged that there were other missed tests and she did not 

remember why she missed them. In response to questioning from 

the court, mother testified she had two identifications but had 

lost both of them. 

Mother’s counsel requested that the juvenile court dismiss 

the petition. Counsel argued that there was no current risk to 

I.K. Mother’s counsel further argued that mother did not live in 

father’s home. I.K.’s counsel similarly argued that mother posed 

no current risk to I.K. I.K.’s counsel recognized that mother “was 

at” father’s home and that the condition of the home was unsafe 

for I.K., but argued that the unsafe condition did not pose a risk 

to I.K. at the time of the jurisdictional hearing because father 

was no longer living there. I.K.’s counsel acknowledged there 

was evidence to sustain the allegations that father had a history 
11

of substance abuse rendering him unable to provide regular care 

for I.K. 

10. The Juvenile Court Assumed Jurisdiction Over I.K.

The juvenile court sustained the following allegations: 

Father failed to protect P.K. from mother’s substance abuse. 

Father failed to participate in court ordered services. I.K.’s 

sibling is a current dependent of the juvenile court due to 

mother’s substance abuse and father’s failure to protect the child. 

Father has a history of substance abuse, including marijuana,

that renders him incapable of providing I.K. with regular care 

and supervision.5 Mother has a history of mental and emotional 

5 The court sustained many of the same or similar 

allegations under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j). 

Section 300, subdivision (b)(1), provides in pertinent part: “The 

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 been left, . . . or by the inability of the parent or guardian to 

provide regular care for the child due to the parent’s or 

guardian’s mental illness, developmental disability, or substance 

abuse.” 

Section 300, subdivision (j) provides: “The child’s sibling 

has been abused or neglected, as defined in subdivision (a), (b), 

(d), (e), or (i), and there is a substantial risk that the child will be 

abused or neglected, as defined in those subdivisions. The court 

shall consider the circumstances surrounding the abuse or 

neglect of the sibling, the age and gender of each child, the nature 

of the abuse or neglect of the sibling, the mental condition of the 

parent or guardian, and any other factors the court considers 
12

problems including depression and anxiety that interferes with 

the mother’s ability to provide regular care for I.K. Mother has 

failed to consistently participate in mental health services and 

used marijuana to self-medicate in the past. I.K.’s home was 

found to be in a filthy and hazardous condition. “Such a filthy 

and unsanitary home environment established for the child by 

the father, . . . and mother . . . endangers the child’s physical and 

emotional health and safety . . . and places the child at risk of 

physical and emotional harm . . . .” 

The juvenile court explained that “the court’s concern 

is . . . that this is a young mother, and she was in our system as a 

child herself. She had a lot of difficulties. Her mother was 

abusive. She [maternal grandmother] beat her [mother]. She 

[maternal grandmother] used meth[amphetamine]. She 

[maternal grandmother] abandoned her. So she [mother] didn’t 

have a good role model for being a mother. So my heart goes out 

to her for that. And she’s had some difficulties with her other 

kids, and she is coming along. So I don’t want to defeat her. But 

on the other hand, I want mother to understand, when we talk 

about what to do in the future, . . . it’s not her [decision] to 

determine whether she goes to testing or not. It’s not [for] 

her . . . to decide whether she spends the night with somebody 

else. But she has to make the choice that the priority is her 

child . . . .” 

11. Disposition

The juvenile court found that there were reasonable 

measures that could prevent removal of I.K. from mother’s 

probative in determining whether there is a substantial risk to 

the child.” 
13

custody. The court permitted mother to retain custody of I.K. 

The juvenile court ordered mother to take 10 random drug tests, 

participate in individual counseling, and take additional 

parenting classes. 

The court removed I.K. from father “based on clear and 

convincing evidence that father has not made any efforts to 

engage in any services with his other two children, and he 

has not engaged and not kept in touch with the social worker in 

this case . . . .” Father did not appeal. Mother filed a timely 

appeal. 

DISCUSSION

Mother demonstrates no error in the juvenile court’s order 

assuming jurisdiction over I.K. First, it is uncontested that the 

juvenile court properly assumed jurisdiction over I.K. based on 

the allegations against father. Second, mother’s challenge to the 

sufficiency of the evidence lacks merit. 

A. The Juvenile Court Did Not Err Because 

Jurisdiction Over I.K. Based on Father’s Conduct is 

Unchallenged

No one has challenged on appeal the juvenile court’s 

taking jurisdiction over I.K. based on father’s conduct. We may 

affirm the jurisdictional order if any ground for jurisdiction 

supports the court’s jurisdictional order because juvenile court 

jurisdiction is over the child and not the parents. (In re I.J. 

(2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773.) Thus, even were we arguendo to 

accept mother’s challenge to some of the grounds for jurisdiction, 

we would affirm the juvenile court’s jurisdictional order. 

In her reply brief, mother argues “[i]f the evidence did not 

support the allegations against Mother, it did not support her 
14

case plan.” That is a non sequitur. The juvenile court may order 

mother to participate in services regardless of whether the 

sustained allegations concerned her or father. (In re D.L. (2018) 

22 Cal.App.5th 1142, 1148.) The juvenile court “had the 

authority to order a nonoffending parent to participate in 

services. Section 362, subdivision (a) gives the court the 

authority, once a child is declared a dependent, to ‘make any and 

all reasonable orders for the care, supervision, custody, conduct, 

maintenance, and support of the child.’ ” (D.L., supra, at 

p. 1148.) 

No reasonable argument can be made that mother’s case 

plan was unrelated to the uncontested reasons the juvenile court 

took jurisdiction over I.K. Mother’s substance abuse is 

intertwined with the uncontested allegations against father and 

justifies the court’s order of 10 random tests for controlled 

substances. It is undisputed that father did not protect P.K. from 

mother’s substance abuse and that father’s failure to protect P.K. 

placed I.K. at risk of serious harm. It is also undisputed that 

mother’s marijuana abuse caused her to lose custody of I.K.’s two 

sisters. Further, given that mother has lost custody of I.K.’s 

sisters, I.K. would benefit from mother’s participation in 

parenting classes and individual counseling, especially in light of 

social worker reports that mother “did not truly benefit and/or 

internalize the knowledge obtained in the parenting class” she 

previously took. In short, the case plan is appropriate regardless 

of whether mother is successful in contesting the allegations 

against her. .
15

B. Substantial Evidence Supported the Jurisdictional 

Allegations Against Mother

We affirm the jurisdictional order for the independent 

reason that substantial evidence supported the jurisdictional

allegations against mother. On appeal, mother argues that, at 

the time of the jurisdictional hearing, there was no current risk of 

harm to I.K. More specifically, she contends there was no 

evidence of recent marijuana use and therefore no current 

substantial risk of serious physical harm to I.K. According to 

mother, “this Court must consider not Mother’s past marijuana 

use or emotional health but the threshold question of whether 

she has failed to supervise, protect, or provide regular care to 

I.K.” 

Under section 300, subdivision (b) and section 300,

subdivision (j) there must be current risk to the child to support 

dependency jurisdiction. (In re Carlos T. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 

795, 803; see ibid. [“[W]e must conclude that a finding of current 

risk is required for jurisdiction under subdivisions (b) 

and (j) . . . .”].) That does not mean that evidence of past abuse is 

irrelevant. “Although section 300 generally 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 [citation]. The court 

may consider past events in deciding whether a child presently 

needs the court’s protection. [Citation.] A parent’s ‘ “[p]ast 

conduct may be probative of current conditions” if there is reason 

to believe that the conduct will continue.’ ” (In re Christopher R.

(2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1215–1216; In re Kadence P. (2015) 
16

241 Cal.App.4th 1376, 1383–1384 [past events are relevant when 

assessing jurisdiction].) 

Our standard of review is familiar. “ ‘In reviewing a 

challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the 

jurisdictional findings and disposition, we determine if 

substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supports 

them. “In making this determination, 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 issues 

of fact and credibility are the province of the trial court.”

[Citation.] “We do not reweigh the evidence or exercise 

independent judgment, but merely determine if there are 

sufficient facts to support the findings of the trial court. 

[Citations.] ‘ “[T]he [appellate] court must review the whole 

record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to 

determine whether it discloses substantial evidence . . . such that 

a reasonable trier of fact could find [that the order is 

appropriate].” ’ [Citation.]” [Citation.]’ ” (In re I.J., supra, 

56 Cal.4th at p. 773.) 

The premise of mother’s argument—that there was no 

evidence of recent marijuana use—is inconsistent with the 

record, which demonstrates at the time of the jurisdictional 

hearing that mother had recently used marijuana. Mother 

admitted to using marijuana when she was pregnant with I.K. 

Shortly before the jurisdictional hearing, mother missed her tests 

for controlled substances on January 3, January 8, January 16, 

January 17, January 18, and January 22, 2020. Mother also did 

not appear for any of her scheduled drug tests in March 2020, 

including those days just before the trial court issued its 
17

jurisdictional order. Although mother missed one test because 

she was in court, she provided an inadequate excuse of losing her 

identification for missing several other tests and no excuse for 

missing the remainder. Missed tests without adequate 

justification, as is the case here, allow us to presume that those

missed tests would have been positive. (In re Kadence P., supra, 

241 Cal.App.4th at p. 1384; Jennifer A. v. Superior Court (2004) 

117 Cal.App.4th 1322, 1343.) 

Although marijuana use does not automatically support 

jurisdiction (In re J.A. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 1036, 1050), in this 

case, mother’s marijuana use rose to the level of abuse when it 

caused her to lose custody of two children. (See In re Christopher 

R., supra, 225 Cal.App.4th at p. 1218 [failure to fulfill major role 

obligations in the home is one of several definitions of substance 

abuse].) 

Additionally, despite court-ordered random drug testing in 

connection with P.K.’s case, mother continued to use marijuana 

and regularly failed to show up for her drug tests. (See In re 

Christopher R., supra, 225 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1218–1219.) 

Mother exposed I.K. to marijuana in utero and to marijuana 

smoke in father’s home. Finally, although mother attended 

therapy, there was no evidence that she addressed her depression 

and anxiety, which the juvenile court found caused her to “self 

medicate” with marijuana. Thus, the juvenile court could infer 

that mother’s marijuana abuse was likely to continue absent 

juvenile court intervention. Mother’s argument that at the time 

of the jurisdictional hearing, there was no substantial risk to I.K. 

fails to acknowledge the full record and is thus unpersuasive. 

(See In re Kadence P., supra, 241 Cal.App.4th 1376, 1385–1386.) 
18

Mother argues that the record here “resembles” In re 

David M. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 822, 829,

6 in which the 

appellate court reversed a jurisdictional order. We disagree. In 

David M., the court concluded that evidence of the mother’s 

mental and substance abuse problems and the father’s mental 

problems, was never tied to any actual harm to the minor. (Ibid.) 

In that case, however, there was uncontradicted evidence the 

child was “healthy, well cared for, and loved” while living in a 

“clean, tidy home.” (Id. at p. 830.) Mother had testified negative 

for drugs approximately 18 times and had apparently valid 

excuses for her missed tests. (Ibid.)

That is not the case here. Father’s home was cluttered 

with trash, rodents, and dirty diapers. Although the record 

shows that father was evicted from his home removing any risk 

to I.K. based on the unsanitary condition of that specific home, 

there was no evidence that either mother or father understood 

the need to provide a safe home for I.K., including one 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.) Whether or not mother lived with father, 

she visited father’s home with I.K. regularly, a home that mother 

does not contest was “unsafe,” “unsanitary,” and “hazardous.” A 

social worker observed I.K.’s toys and clothing in a home that 

posed great risk to an infant unable to avoid the clutter, trash, 

and dead rodent in the living space. These unhealthy conditions 

also fit a pattern; mother’s home with P.K. was also “unkempt, 

filthy, messy, and unsuitable . . . for an infant.” Mother, 

6 Abrogated on a different ground in In re R.T. (2017)

3 Cal.5th 622, 628.
19

moreover, missed several drug tests with no excuse. This case 

thus hardly “resembles” In re David M.

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s jurisdictional order is affirmed. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

BENDIX, J.

We concur:

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

FEDERMAN, J.*

* Judge of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court, 

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

the California Constitution.