Filed 5/30/13 In re Ashley M. CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ASHLEY M. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. B243052 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK93422)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
SCOTT M.,
Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Donna Levin, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.

Merrill Lee Toole, under appointment by the Court of Appeal , for Defendant and Appellant.

John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and John C. Savittieri, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.2 No appearance for Minors.
* * * * * *

Appellant Scott M. (Father) was involu ntarily hospitalized after he had been drinking for four consecutive days and expre ssed suicidal thoughts. Father’s girlfriend arranged for the children Ashley M. and Robert M. to go with their mother, Danielle B. (Mother) on the day Father was hospitalized. This was his third hospitalization during the past year. The juvenile court sustaine d a petition pursuant to We lfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), 1 which alleged that Father’s alcohol abuse and history of mental and emotional problems placed the ch ildren at risk. Father appealed, asserting that substantial evidence did not support th e juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings. We affirm. The Los Angeles County Depa rtment of Children and Family Services (Department) offered sufficient evidence to show there was a substantial risk the children would suffer serious physical harm or illness from Father’s inability to provide regular
care for them due to his alcohol abuse and mental health issues.
FACTUAL AND PROCED URAL BACKGROUND Facts Preceding Detention. In September 2007, when Ashley was f our years old, the family came to the attention of Sacramento County Child Protective Services due to allegations that Father sexually abused her. The allegations were assessed as being inconclusive. In 2008,
Father was arrested for diso rderly conduct and being u nder the influence; he had previously been arrested several times on vary ing charges, and had served time in prison. Father was involuntarily psychiatrically hospitalized in April and September 2011.

1 Unless otherwise indicated, all further st atutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.3 The Department received a referral on Ma rch 29, 2012 that Father had been brought in by law enforcement and ho spitalized pursuant to section 5150 2 because he was a danger to himself and others. Father was drunk and had been drin king for the past four days. He told a friend he wanted to “‘Off himself.’” He likewis e told law enforcement
officers that he wanted to end his life and ha d been drinking for several days. At the time of the referral, the Department learned that Father had full custody of Ashley and Robert, and Mother had lost custody. Before he was hospitalized, Father had left the children with his girlfriend, Kim A., w ho contacted Mother to have he r take the children. He was
released after a 72-hour hold. A Department social worker made un announced visits to Father’s home on March 30, April 7 and April 11, 2012, but did not make contact with anyone. On April 12, 2012, Father telephoned the social worker. He admitted he had recently been hospitalized and stated that he had allowed Mother to care for Ashley and Robert. He
added that the children had been missing Mother and it had been difficult for him to care for them due to transportation issues. He de nied that the children had been removed from Mother’s custody, stating that he had sole physical custody and Mother had visitation rights. 3 He confirmed that Mother had picked up the children before he was hospitalized, and therefore they were not present when law enforcement came to pick him up. He did not admit or deny that he had a substance abuse problem and had be en drinking for four

2 Section 5150 provides in relevant part: “When any pe rson, as a result of mental disorder, is a danger to others, or to hims elf or herself, or gravely disabled, a peace officer, member of the attending staff, as de fined by regulation, of an evaluation facility designated by the county, designated member s of a mobile crisis team provided by Section 5651.7, or other pr ofessional person designate d by the county may, upon probable cause, take, or cause to be taken, the person into custody and place him or her in a facility designated by the county and appr oved by the State Department of Social Services as a facility for 72- hour treatment and evaluation.”

3 Father’s March 2012 declaration of cust ody alleged that Moth er attempted suicide and was hospitalized in August 2011; Mother denied the a llegations and hospital records did not support that claim.4 consecutive days, stating “‘I was just having some personal problems and I didn’t want
the kids to be around me.’” He denied that Mother or he had ever abused or neglected the children. Approximately two weeks later, Father signed a safety plan which permitted Mother to continue to care for the children during the Department’s investigation. He refused to sign a release of the records concerning his hospitalization.
The social worker intervie wed Mother and the children on April 14, 2012. Mother reported that Father and she had been separate d for about two years, and similarly denied any neglect or abuse of the ch ildren. She was currently resi ding with an aunt and uncle, and confirmed that Father had custody of the children while she had visitation rights. She
stated that Father had had a “‘drinking problem’” and he drank almost daily, primarily beer, when he resided with her. She was aw are of his past hospitalizations, but denied that he used drugs or had engaged in domestic violence. With respect to Father’s recent hospitalization, Mother stated Kim A. informed her that Father was depressed, had been drinking and expressed suicidal thoughts. She picked up the children before law
enforcement arrived. Nine-year-old Ashley stated that she had everything she needed while living with Father, but she missed Mother. She reported that neither parent abused nor neglected her or Robert. She did not know what drugs and alcohol were. Four-year-old Robert appeared happy and well cared for. The Department concluded that Ashley and Robert were at “‘Very High Risk’” due to Father’s mental, emoti onal and sobriety issues, as well as Mother’s failure to obtain a custody order.
Section 300 Petition. On May 9, 2012, the Department filed a section 300 petition alle ging pursuant to subdivision (b) that the children were at a risk of harm from Father’s history of substance abuse and current alcohol abuse (paragraph b-1) and from his hi story of mental and emotional problems, including his recent hosp italization to treat hi s psychiatric condition (paragraph b-2).5 Father and Mother appeared at a deten tion hearing the same day. The juvenile court found a prima facie case for detaining the children; it removed them from Father’s custody and permitted the Departme nt to release them to Mothe r’s custody so long as she
continued to reside with her relatives. It further ordered weekly random alcohol testing
for Father and allowed hi m monitored visitation. Jurisdiction and Disposition.
The social worker reinte rviewed Father, Mother, Kim A. and the children for the Department’s June 11, 2012 jurisdiction/dis position report. With respect to the petition’s allegation concerning Father’s substance abuse, Ashley ad mitted she had seen Father
“drink beer . . . like one or two.” Kim A. stated that Father does not usually drink.
Mother stated that a lthough Father had a drinking problem right after the two separated, she was under the impression that Father had not been drinking since he gained custody
of the children. She added that he is stab le and capable of cari ng for the children when not drinking, but that he becomes emotionally depressed when he drinks alcohol. Father admitted that he experimented with alcohol and drugs when he was a teenager and spent
time in Juvenile Hall. In 1993 he was arre sted for driving under the influence, and in
1995 he was arrested for unla wfully possessing a firearm and spent six years in prison. He admitted to having a problem with alcohol during that time in his life. He further stated, however, that he needed to “detox” in 2011 and he was to ld the only way to receive free “detox services” was to say he was a danger to himself or others. In connection with the second allega tion concerning Fath er’s mental and emotional condition, Mother de nied any knowledge of Fathe r’s prior hospitalizations and said Father told her the Department’s acc ount of his most recent hospitalization was untrue. Though he conceded that his two 2011 hospital st ays were the result of his alcohol problem, Father denied ever being diagnosed with de pression or being suicidal. According to him, the March 2012 hospitalization was the result of a misunderstanding.
He admitted that at that time he “was having a hard time and [he] was drinking a lot,” and called a friend to help him with the children. He said he began confiding in her and she must have thought he was in trouble because the police soon arrived at his home offering6 him the choice of jail or the hospital; he chos e the latter. Kim A. stated that she was
unsure whether Father was suicidal in March 2012, but she did come at his request and got the children out of the house. More generally, Mother characterized the children’ s custody arrangement as voluntary and reported that since their separa tion she and Father ha d been able to co-parent the children e ffectively. Nonetheless, in 2012 she agreed to ha ve the family law court grant full custody of the child ren to Father. At the time of the jurisdiction/disposition report, neither child had received a regular medical checkup in quite some time and had not been to a dentist in over two years. The Department opined “that both the moth er and the father appear to minimize the father’s mental health problems and repeatedly emphasize that each parent’s individual problems have never affected or in fluenced the children,” and that their failure to comprehend the serious nature of Father’s mental/emotional and sobriety issues placed the children at risk of abuse and/or negl ect. The Department recommended that the children be detained, stating: “Based on the history of mental health hospitalizations as to the father, the father’s prio r and current alcohol issues, the father’s criminal record and the mother’s prior mental hea lth issues, the overall risk [t o the future safety of the children] is ‘high.’” In a June 11, 2012 last minute informa tion for the court, the Department reported that Father had completed four weekly ra ndom alcohol tests—all negative. At the jurisdiction/disposition hearing the same day, the juvenile court admitted the Department’s reports into evidence and he ard counsels’ arguments. While Father’s counsel sought dismissal of the petition, co unsel for the Department and the children asked the juvenile court to sustain it, with the exception of the reference to Father being diagnosed with depression. The juvenile court found that the ch ildren were persons as described in section 300, subdivision (b) and sustaine d the petition, striking the reference to a diagnosis of depression because the Department did not present evidence to support that allegation. The juvenile court characterized th e matter as a “classic case where the father7 doesn’t want to face the seriousness of the al cohol problem.” Proceeding immediately to disposition, the juvenile court declared the ch ildren dependents of the court pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b), ordered the children removed from Father’s custody and placed them with Mother. It also ordered a full alcohol treatment pr ogram for Father to include random testing, a mental health ps ychiatric evaluation and parenting classes.
Father received monitored visitation. Mo ther submitted to the juvenile court’s jurisdiction and received family preservation and other services. Father appealed. In Janua ry 2013, while the appeal was pending, the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction with a family law order whic h awarded Father and Mother joint legal custody of the ch ildren and Mother sole physic al custody. We have taken judicial notice of the juvenile court’s termin ation order. We note that “[t]he court’s termination of jurisdiction does not, howeve r, moot Father’s a ppeal. The court’s jurisdictional findings as to Father, if erroneous, could have severe and unfair consequences to Father in future fam ily law or dependency proceedings.” ( In re Daisy H. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 713, 716; accord, In re D.C. (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1015.)
DISCUSSION Though Father appealed from both the jurisdictional and disposition orders, he challenges only the juvenile court’s juri sdictional findings under section 300, subdivision (b). (See, e.g., People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793 [“‘Every brief should contain a legal argument with citation of authorities on the points made. If none is furnished on a particular point, the court may treat it as waived, and pass it without consideration’”].) The statute provides, in pe rtinent part, that a ch ild comes within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court if “[t]he child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical ha rm or illness, . . . by the inability of the parent . . . to provide regular care for the child due to the parent’s . . . mental illness, . . . or substance abuse.” (§ 300, su bd. (b).) Jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b) is warranted by a showing “the child has suffe red or there is a substantial8 risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm or abuse.” ( In re Adam D. (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1261, italics omitted.) The Department bears the burden to “‘“p rove by a preponderance of the evidence
that the child . . . come s under the juvenile court’s jurisdiction.”’” ( In re Veronica G. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 179, 185.) “On ap peal from an order making jurisdictional findings, we must uphold the court’s finding s unless, after reviewing the entire record and resolving all conflicts in favor of the respondent and drawing all reasonable inferences in support of the judgment, we de termine there is no subs tantial evidence to support the findings. [Citation.]” ( Ibid .) “‘The term “substantia l evidence” means such
relevant evidence as a reasona ble mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion; it is evidence which is reasonable in nature, cr edible, and of solid va lue. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” ( In re E.B. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 568, 574– 575.) In determining whether
substantial evidence—contradicted or uncont radicted—supports the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings, “we draw all reasonabl e inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders of the dependency cour t; we review the record in the light most
favorable to the court’s determin ations; and we note that issu es of fact and credibility are the province of the trial court.” ( In re Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 193.) Here, substantial evidence supported the juvenile court’s findings under paragraphs b-1 and b-2 of the petition. 4 In the petition’s first paragraph, the Department alleged that Father “has a history of substanc e abuse and is a current abuser of alcohol, which renders the father incapable of prov iding regular care and supervision of the
children.” It further cited the March 2012 incident and alleged that Father’s alcohol abuse placed the children’s physical health and safety at risk. The juvenile court found paragraph b-1 true as pled. Highlighting the seriousness of Fa ther’s problem, the juvenile

4 We address the sufficiency of the evidence under both paragraphs of the petition, even though a single basis of jurisdiction is su fficient to uphold the juvenile court’s order. (E.g., In re Dirk S. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1037, 1045; In re Jonathan B. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 873, 875–876.)9 court observed that even though Father had been hospitalized to “detox” on more than one occasion, he continued to drink, even with two yo ung children under his care. By Father’s own admission, his problem with alcohol was long-standing and unresolved. Father stated that he began ex perimenting with alcohol at age 13. During the next 20 years, Father am assed a criminal record wh ich included drunk driving convictions in 1993 and again sometime afte r 2002. He admitted that in 2011 “he did have an alcohol problem which resulted in two ‘detox’ stays at Henry Mayo.” With respect to the March 2012 incident, Father ad mitted that he had been drinking for at least four consecutive days because he wanted to “‘forget everyt hing.’” Though Father noted
that the children were not w ith him during the 2011 incide nts, the March 2012 drinking incident occurred just two to three weeks after he gained fu ll custody of the children and, by his own account, the childre n remained in his custody during those four days of drinking. Mother did not take custody of the children until the day Father was hospitalized. Given these circumstances, substantial ev idence supported the juvenile court’s determination that the children’s safety remain ed at risk until Father received treatment
for his alcohol abuse. Even if we were to characterize the March 2012 hospitalization as a single incident of endangering conduct, it wo uld be sufficient to support jurisdiction. As explained in In re J.N. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1025, which involved a single incident of a parent’s drinking and driving, the court explained that “[i]n evaluating risk based upon a single episode of endangering co nduct, a juvenile court should consider the nature of the conduct and all surrounding circumstances,” includi ng evidence of the parent’s understanding of the endangering conduct, steps taken to address the problematic conduct, and other indications that the co nduct will not recur. Here, Father never acknowledged the seriousness of his alcohol a buse and instead denied that his drinking negatively affected the children. Though he did have four clean court-ordered alcohol tests before the jurisdictional hearing, there was nothing in the record suggesting that he was voluntarily participating in any type of alcohol treatment program. Nor was there10 any indication that Mother could assist him in treating his problem, as Father told her that he had stopped drinking. Conceding that the Department offered evidence of his recent alcohol abuse, Father argues that there was no evidence s howing a nexus between his drinking and any current risk to his children. We do not agree. Section 300.2 provides that the purpose of
the Welfare and Institutions Code provisions relating to depe ndent children is to secure protection for children being harmed or who are at risk of being harmed, and that “[t]he provision of a home environment free from the negative effects of substance abuse is a necessary condition for the safety, protection and physical and emo tional well-being of the child.” (Italics added.) Though Father has made effo rts to “detox,” the evidence
showed that he has been un able to provide a home envi ronment free from alcohol abuse
for his children. Notwithstandi ng that the children remained in his care until the last day of his four days of drinking, he continued to deny that his alcohol abuse remained a current problem, stating: “In the past it was a problem (alcohol) but not now.” Mother stated that Father could provi de a stable environment for th e children so long as he did not drink. Ashley initially to ld the social worker she did not know what alcohol was, but admitted in the jurisdiction/dispos ition report that “‘I know what alcohol is . . . it’s wine and I don’t want to say the other thing. . . . Yeah . . . beer. I’ve seen my dad drink beer
. . . like one or two.’” Her statements demo nstrated she had some awareness of Father’s alcohol consumption and a desire to conceal it. A dependency court need not wait until the child has been seriously harmed by the parent’s abuse or neglect before it assume s jurisdiction to prot ect the child. (E.g., In re Heather A., supra, 52 Cal.App.4th at p. 1 94.) Evidence that while the children were in Father’s care he drank for a period of several consecutive days to such an extent that he required hospitalization, and thereafter failed to acknowledge that his drinking posed any problem for his children, supported the finding that his alcohol abuse created a risk of serious harm and neglect. Similarly, substantial evidence suppor ted the jurisdictional findings under paragraph b-2 of the petition th at Father’s mental and emotional condition, including11 suicidal ideation, rendered him incapable of pr oviding regular care a nd supervision of the children and placed them at substantial risk of harm. Father had been involuntarily psychiatrically hospitalized three times duri ng the year preceding the section 300 petition. Father continued to minimize the significance of these incidents, claiming that he falsely represented he was a danger to himself or othe rs in order to receive free services. He attributed his most recent hospitalization to “personal problems” and stated the children
were with Mother while he wa s hospitalized because they had been missing her. Mother initially denied knowledge of Father’s hos pitalizations, but then acknowledged that Father had been hospitalized on more than one occasion to address his mental and emotional issues. Though Father claimed th at Kim A. misunderstood his condition, she stated that preceding Father’s most recent hospitalization, Fa ther had been depressed, was drinking and said that he felt like he wanted to commit suicide. Kim A. reported to the Sheriff’s Department that she called law en forcement because she feared Father “was going to hurt himself and possible [ sic ] the kids . . . .” The law enforcement officer who completed Father’s application for a 72-hou r detention for evaluation and treatment reported that Father told him he wanted to end his life and had been drinking for several days because he wanted to forget everything.
Substantial evidence therefore demonstrated that Father’s mental health issues periodically rendered him incapable of providi ng adequate care for the children. Even though there was no evidence that Ashley and Robert had suffered actual physical injury
as the result of Father’s mental health i ssues, his continued efforts to minimize those issues coupled with his inability to care for the children during peri ods of hospitalization “pose[d] an inherent risk to th eir physical health and safety” ( In re Rocco M. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 814, 824) a nd constituted substantial evidence the children were at risk of future serious physical harm or illness. Contrary to Father’s assertion, we do not find that the circ umstances presented
here are akin to those in In re James R. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1 29. There, the court reversed a juvenile court’s order under sectio n 300, subdivision (b), based on the court’s findings regarding the mother’s alleged ment al health problems and substance abuse.12 ( In re James R., supra, at p. 137.) The evidence of the mother’s substance abuse and its possible relation to mental health problems was that the mother once had a negative reaction from the combination of taking eight ibuprofen tablets and drinking beer. ( Id . at pp. 131–132.) When she realized she was having an ad verse reaction, she called for help and was hospitalized. The evid ence further showed she was not intentionally trying to harm herself, but needed the large dose of ib uprofen for pain relief, as she had built up a tolerance for acetaminophen. ( Id. at p. 132.) She admitted th at she had previously been hospitalized for mental health issues before her children were born and used illegal drugs approximately seven years earlier. ( Ibid. ) Both her psychiatrist and the social worker opined that the mother did not pose a risk to her young children. ( Id . at pp. 133–134.) Moreover, the mother and father lived together, and father at all times had been able to provide adequate care for the children. ( Id . at p. 134.) In light of this evidence, the appellate court deemed specula tive any causal link between th e mother’s mental state and future harm to the children. ( Id . at p. 136.)
In contrast to In re James R. , the evidence in the instan t case showed that Father was drunk and depressed for several days while the children remained under his individual care, that he had very recently be en hospitalized with th oughts of suicide and that his hospitalization rendered him incapable of caring for the child ren. Both Mother and Kim A. acknowledged that Father was un able to care for the children when he was drinking and depressed. More importantly, the mother in In re James R. recognized her problems and voluntarily initiated servic es before being ordered to do so. ( In re James R., supra , 176 Cal.App.4th at p. 132.) Fa ther never acknowledged his mental health problems, choosing inst ead to minimize or deny th em. Thus, the possibility of recurring problems and risk to the children from Father’s mental health issues was far more than speculative. (See Jonathan L. v. Superior Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1104 [“‘The purpose of dependency proceedings is to prevent risk, not ignore it’”].) Substantial evidence supported the juve nile court’s jurisdictional findings.13 DISPOSITION The juvenile court’s jurisdictional and disposition orders are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

.

________________ _____, J. *
FERNS
We concur:

________________ ____________, Acting P. J.
ASHMANN-GERST

___________________ _________, J.
CHAVEZ

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.