Filed 4/19/23 In re N.N. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 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 N.N. et al., Persons

Coming Under the Juvenile 

Court Law.

 B318483

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct.

 No. 21CCJP03993A-C)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

B.V.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Martha A. Matthews, Judge. Affirmed.

Janette F. Cochran, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
2

Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, William D. Thetford and David 

Michael Miller, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and 

Respondent.

* * * * * *

B.V. (mother) appeals from the jurisdictional order that 

resulted in the detention of N.N. (born March 2013), L.N. (born 

March 2015), and J.R. (born April 2017).1 Mother argues the 

evidence did not support the finding that the children were at 

substantial risk of physical harm from domestic violence or 

mother’s substance abuse, but mother does not address the other

basis for jurisdiction. We find substantial evidence supports the 

juvenile court’s order.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Prior referrals to DCFS in 2016 and 2019

On April 18, 2016, the Los Angeles County Department of 

Children and Family Services (DCFS) received a referral alleging 

emotional abuse and general neglect of N.N. and L.N. by mother 

and their father, J.E. It was claimed that on April 15, 2016, 

mother went to J.E.’s home to pick up the children when a fight 

ensued and resulted in J.E. grabbing a knife and chasing mother 

out of the house. J.E. was arrested by law enforcement. The 

children were present and left alone in the home for an unknown 

amount of time while J.E. and mother were outside.

1 N.N. and L.N.’s father is J.E. J.R.’s father is M.R. Neither 

father is a part of this appeal.
3

Mother and J.E. stated their relationship had ended in 

September 2015 after it became violent and J.E. had harmed 

mother.

The claim of general neglect was substantiated for J.E., but 

not against mother. The claim of emotional abuse was 

inconclusive.

On March 13, 2019, DCFS received a new referral that

alleged mother had caused emotional abuse to N.N., L.N., and 

J.R. The conduct, however, involved J.R.’s father, M.R. It was 

claimed that mother came to M.R.’s apartment and vandalized 

his cars. Law enforcement arrived, and while investigating, they 

overheard mother admitting she had vandalized the cars and 

wanted to hit M.R. with a car.

M.R. also reported a prior incident (March 11, 2019) of 

domestic violence involving mother. This occurred when M.R.,

mother and the children went to dinner to celebrate N.N.’s 

birthday. When M.R. advised mother he needed to leave because 

it was late, mother became angry and started hitting M.R. in the 

face. M.R. showed law enforcement his injuries.

Mother was arrested for felony vandalism and domestic 

violence. N.N. and L.N. went to live with the maternal 

grandmother and J.R. lived with M.R.

During the investigation, M.R. obtained a temporary 

restraining order protecting him and J.R. from mother. 

J.R. remained in M.R.’s care. Though mother had sole legal 

custody of N.N. and L.N. through a family law order, mother left 

them in the care of the maternal grandmother and maternal 

aunt. DCFS found insufficient evidence to substantiate the claim 

of emotional abuse and closed the case as inconclusive.
4

In 2020, there was a claim against J.E. for emotional abuse 

and general neglect based on him attacking another driver while 

the children were in his car. This incident did not involve mother. 

Afterward, mother was granted full custody of the children, and 

she obtained a three-year restraining order protecting her and 

the children from J.E.

Criminal investigation of mother and fathers

Mother’s criminal history included infliction of corporal 

injury to a spouse or cohabitant and making a criminal threat. 

J.E.’s criminal history included criminal threats, possession of a 

deadly weapon, a warrant for failure to appear, kidnapping, sex 

with a minor, disorderly conduct, intoxication, infliction of

corporal injury on a spouse, receipt of stolen property, child 

cruelty, violation of an order preventing domestic violence, 

assault with a deadly weapon, driving with a suspended license, 

battery, and reckless driving. The other father, M.R., had a 

history of battery on a peace officer and emergency personnel, 

disorderly conduct, intoxication, several acts of driving under the 

influence, driving with a suspended license, giving false 

information to a peace officer, and a hit and run while driving 

under the influence of alcohol.

Current referral

On July 26, 2021, mother called police because M.R. had 

struck mother with a metal marijuana grinder while J.R. was 

present.

DCFS received a child abuse referral on the same date,

alleging that N.N. and L.N. were victims of emotional distress by 

the father, M.R., and that J.R. had been present when M.R.

attacked mother.
5

On August 19, 2021, the juvenile court ordered the children 

removed and placed with the maternal aunt.

On August 25, 2021, a petition was filed alleging the 

children, N.N., L.N., and J.R., were within the court’s jurisdiction 

based on Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions

(a) (serious physical harm), (b) (failure to protect), and (j) (abuse 

of sibling).

2

The petition alleged a history of domestic violence between 

mother and M.R. that endangered the children’s physical health 

and safety. This included the July 26, 2021 incident when M.R.

struck mother with a metal marijuana grinder and nine prior 

occasions when mother attacked M.R. or his mother (paternal 

grandmother): (1) mother struck M.R. on March 20, 2021 with a 

metal tool and broke three of his ribs, (2) mother threw a full 

water bottle at M.R. on May 20, 2020, (3) mother struck M.R.’s 

leg while it was in a cast in 2020, (4) mother attacked the 

paternal grandmother when she intervened, (5) mother 

vandalized M.R.’s vehicles with a knife on March 12, 2019, (6) 

mother threatened to hit M.R. with a motor vehicle on March 12, 

2019, (7) mother grabbed M.R.’s hair and scratched his face on 

March 9, 2019, while the children were in the vehicle, (8) mother 

repeatedly struck and scratched M.R. in January 2019, (9) 

mother grabbed a knife with a serrated edge and lacerated M.R.

in September or October 2018, and (10) mother struck M.R. with 

a vehicle on February 12, 2018.

2 All further unattributed statutory references are to the 

Welfare and Institutions Code.
6

In addition, the petition alleged that M.R. had physically 

abused L.N. by striking him with a clothes hanger. It added that 

mother had failed to protect L.N. from M.R.

The petition alleged a failure to protect the children from 

experiencing the violence in the household between mother and 

M.R. under section 300, subdivision (b).It also alleged that 

mother was incapable of ensuring the young children were 

properly supervised due to her history of and current substance 

abuse of both marijuana and alcohol. It alleged that M.R. also 

abused alcohol while the children were in his care. Mother was 

alleged not to have protected the children from the consequences 

of this substance abuse.

The petition also included allegations that mother knew

that father, J.E., had violent tendencies, such as his attack on 

another motorist with a hammer, and she had failed to protect 

the children from his violent outbursts.

The petition alleged under section 300, subdivision (j) that 

M.R. had physically abused L.N. by striking him with a hanger,

and there was a danger of abuse to the other siblings.

DCFS submitted a detention report and addendum report 

on August 25, 2021,

3 that included a summary of the July

incident when M.R. struck mother with the marijuana grinder. 

DCFS recommended that the children be detained because 

mother had a history of substance abuse, that she currently 

abused marijuana and alcohol, M.R. had a history of substance 

abuse, and J.E. had violent behavior. The detention report 

3 The detention report and an addendum were omitted from 

the clerk’s transcript. On October 14, 2022, counsel for mother 

noted the omission and requested the reports be added to the 

record under California Rules of Court, rule 8.407.
7

included the fact that when the investigator was meeting with 

the mother at her home on July 30, 2021, M.R. tried to enter and 

speak with the investigator, at which time mother began yelling 

at M.R. and demanding he leave.

Mother admitted to the investigator she had been arrested 

after vandalizing M.R.’s vehicle, that M.R. continued to visit the 

children, and that there were four incidents of domestic violence 

involving M.R. The children all told the investigator that M.R.

does not live with them, but visits and fights with mother. L.N.

stated that M.R. had hit him with a hanger and that “he hits us 

when he drinks Papa juice.” J.R. said M.R. drinks a lot, beats on 

the door all the time, and had hit him one time.

M.R. told the investigator that the incident was an accident

and that he had taken mother’s marijuana grinder to upset her 

after she returned late from work. He added that he had a 

complicated history with mother, and he had obtained custody of 

J.R. after mother had vandalized his car and been arrested. He 

also stated that a few months earlier, mother had beat him up 

and broken three of his ribs. M.R. stated he had been living with 

mother consistently for the past year and that he cares for the 

children when mother is at work at night. He also reported 

mother smoked marijuana daily and drank alcohol every morning 

before falling asleep for the day. Father denied that “papa juice” 

was alcohol and asserted it was “shakes” he made for himself and 

the children.

The paternal grandmother told the investigator that she 

was taking care of J.R. and that she wanted to care for him so he 

could be safe. The paternal grandmother asked that her residence 

be kept confidential because mother had threatened to kill her 

and sent people to vandalize her property. The paternal 
8

grandmother also stated that mother had shown up at M.R.’s 

work and tried to run him over and then broke three of his ribs 

when she hit him with a metal tool.

The investigator confirmed that mother was on probation 

for the vandalism that occurred in 2019.

Detention hearing

A detention hearing was held on August 30, 2021. The 

court found that J.E. was the presumed father of N.N. and L.N.

At a subsequent hearing on October 4, 2021, the court found M.R.

to be the presumed father of J.R. In addition, at the August 30, 

2021 hearing, the court found a prima facie case to remove the 

children pending disposition or further order.

N.N. told the investigator that he lived with his mother, 

M.R., and siblings. He denied any physical abuse but shared that 

M.R. had accidentally thrown a hanger at him. He added that 

M.R. drank and his mother smoked. He said the police had been 

to the home a few times because his mother reported their “dad.”

He mentioned having heard his parents fighting and some 

screaming on many occasions, but he had not seen them fighting 

because he was in his room.

L.N. said he lived with his mother, brothers, and M.R. He 

admitted that M.R. had disciplined him with a hanger, which had 

left marks. He added that he had also been hit with a belt and 

that his mother had hit him with a hanger once. He stated that 

M.R. drank “papa juice” and that his mother smoked with the 

children present. He also stated that the police had come to the 

home many times because his mother needed their help with 

M.R. He added that he had seen his mother and M.R. fight with 

their hands and with their words.
9

On September 15, 2021, a DCFS investigator talked with 

mother, who admitted to a history of violence with M.R. and to 

calling the police on several occasions because he would come to 

the home drunk or on drugs. She said M.R. had thrown the 

marijuana grinder at her but denied that she had thrown a water 

bottle at him, hit him when he was in a cast, attacked his mother, 

or hit him with a car. She admitted having said she wanted to 

run him over and had scratched his car.

Mother denied any physical abuse had occurred to her 

children or that she abused any substances. She stated she had 

not failed to protect the children and that her use of marijuana 

had not caused any harm to the children. Mother added that she 

did not want to reconcile with either father, and she does not use 

marijuana when the children are present.

DCFS was unable to contact the fathers.

DCFS spoke with the maternal aunt, who was a caregiver 

for the children and had provided care for the children when 

mother was incarcerated. She said she was not in contact with 

either father and that the family had little contact with J.E.

DCFS filed a last minute information report for the court 

on October 18, 2021, that advised the court that M.R. had come to 

the maternal aunt’s home on September 27, 2021, in the middle 

of the night. M.R. had broken windows and dented the doors 

when trying to use something to enter the home. The caregiver 

reported that M.R. also appeared at her home on October 4, 2021, 

and had spit on her when she asked him to leave. The report also

advised the court that mother confirmed she had allowed M.R.

into the house to help her with the children because she needed 

the help. She also had received an eviction notice and was trying 

to find housing.
10

DCFS filed an interim review report on December 3, 2021,

that indicated J.E. had not completed an interview about the 

petition, would not engage with the social workers, and would 

just rant about the children’s placement. The report also showed 

mother was receiving substance abuse treatment, but would be 

discharged if she did not stop testing positive for marijuana. 

Mother had tested positive on eight occasions between 

September 20 and November 22, 2021. DCFS argued that the 

minors would be in danger if released to the care of any parent 

because of the history of substance abuse and domestic violence.

DCFS filed a last minute information report to confirm that 

mother remained enrolled in her programs but continued to test

positive for drugs on December 6, 2021. However, she did test

negative for drugs on December 15 and 22, 2021.

Jurisdiction hearing

The jurisdiction hearing was held on January 12, 2022. The 

juvenile court admitted into evidence the DCFS reports that 

contained the facts its investigators had compiled during their 

interviews with mother, the children, the fathers, and relatives.

Mother testified that she had been married to M.R., they had 

J.R., and she had taken care of her two other children, N.N. and 

L.N. with M.R. She testified that she had not lived with M.R.

since February 2018.

Mother added that after she had moved out, she had lived 

with her mother until she went to jail for two months. She was 

put on probation for five years and ordered to complete a 

domestic violence program. Mother testified that she completed 

the program.

When asked whether there was domestic violence in her 

relationship with M.R., she testified that she had been a victim in 
11

her relationship with J.E. and then a batterer in her relationship 

with M.R. because “Habits just followed. I just did what I knew.”

She said she had been taking domestic violence classes and that 

therapy had been very helpful.

Mother admitted that the domestic violence had a negative 

effect on both her and her children. She testified that she had 

learned the environment was unhealthy and could be teaching 

that the behavior was normal. Mother said she noticed she had a 

control issue and had decided not to be in a relationship so she 

could focus on herself and her children. She identified her past 

behavior as mistaken and recognized that her attitude and 

actions affected the children.

Mother also testified that she was in a substance abuse 

program because she was smoking marijuana and had prior 

problems with alcohol and drugs. She said that she had not 

drunk alcohol since July the prior year and had not smoked 

marijuana since August or September 2021. She testified that 

she would smoke on weekends while her children were with her 

sister or their grandmother. She asserted she was never 

intoxicated when she was caring for her children.

Mother also said she had learned parenting skills and that 

she wanted to become a parent who would play with her children, 

as opposed to watching them play with the crafts and toys she 

had bought for them. She testified that providing a safe home for 

her children was her “priority number one.”

Mother said she had never seen M.R. strike any of her 

children and she never used physical discipline on her children. 

She had not seen M.R. care for the children while intoxicated,

and she would not allow anyone who was intoxicated to watch 

over the children. She left M.R. because he had a drinking 
12

problem. After she left, she chose not to coparent with M.R. for 

almost a year and had only recently started coparenting with 

him.

Mother ended her direct testimony by saying she was 

committed to continuing in the programs and that she would do 

anything and everything for the children. She added that if the 

children were returned to her, she would be moving into a place 

that her grandmother had rented for them.

On cross-examination, mother testified that she was not 

aware that M.R. had claimed to be living at her home with her 

since 2020. She stated she had not seen him since August 2021,

when she called the police because he was angry with her. When 

asked about coparenting with M.R., she testified that some days 

were good and free of problems, but others were not because he 

seemed to be intoxicated. She added that M.R. would take the 

children and, since she knew M.R. had a drinking problem, she 

would always make sure he appeared sober. Mother testified that 

her efforts to ensure M.R. was sober created trouble because he 

did not think it fair for her to decide when he could take the 

children.

Mother denied that M.R. was coming over to her home. She 

testified that he was there just for the exchange of the children.

On redirect, mother testified that she did not share a 

residence with M.R. in 2019 or 2020. She said there was no 

contact in 2019 and that the interactions in 2020 and 2021 were 

coparenting.

Mother admitted to having been in jail for vandalizing 

M.R.’s vehicle in 2019, but she denied the claims that she had 

thrown a water bottle at him or struck him with a metal tool. 

Mother agreed there was a problem with domestic violence when 
13

she was with M.R., but that had been addressed after she left 

him.

The juvenile court dismissed the counts based on section 

300, subdivision (a), because it found that DCFS had not 

established that the children would suffer a substantial risk of 

serious physical harm inflicted nonaccidentally on them by the 

parents.

The court sustained the count based on section 300, 

subdivision (b), because it found DCFS had established there was 

a substantial risk that the children would suffer serious physical 

harm based on the history of violent altercations between mother 

and M.R., mother’s awareness of his drinking problems, and the 

children’s statements that they had seen M.R. drinking. The 

court also found that the evidence in the interviews with the 

children in the DCFS reports established that mother knew or 

should have known that M.R. had been drunk around the 

children and had hit them. The court noted that the 

investigations showed that one of the children had told mother 

about M.R. hitting him.

The court also sustained the count based on section 300, 

subdivision (j), because it found that one of the children had been 

abused or neglected and there was a substantial risk that a 

sibling would be.

The other father, J.E., had pleaded no contest to the claims 

in the petition about his conduct. The court found that DCFS had 

not proven that mother had failed to protect the children from 

J.E.’s violent conduct.

The three minors were declared dependents of the court,

and the court ordered them placed in suitable placement under 

the supervision of DCFS.
14

The juvenile court recognized mother’s progress but found 

more time was needed to ensure that the children were safe due 

to the history of substance abuse and domestic violence. It found 

that a three-month progress review was appropriate.

Mother filed a timely notice of appeal on February 9, 2022. 

Six months later, on August 29, 2022, the juvenile court ordered 

the children returned to mother. The court found that the mother 

had made substantial progress toward alleviating or mitigating 

the causes and that the return of the children would not create a 

substantial risk to the safety, protection, or well-being of the 

children.

DISCUSSION

Mother appeals from the January 12, 2022 order resulting 

in the detention of N.N., L.N., and J.R. Although the children 

have been returned to mother, in view of the length of time since 

the initial referral of this family to DCFS (2016), the nature of 

the referrals and the young ages of the children, we cannot 

assume there will be no further need for intervention by the 

dependency system, which may be informed by this appeal. We 

therefore find the case is not moot as the jurisdictional finding 

could affect future proceedings. (In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 

285-287.)

I. Mother failed to address each basis for the juvenile 

court’s jurisdiction

Mother argues a lack of substantial evidence of her conduct 

to establish grounds for jurisdiction under section 300, 

subdivision (b). We note the juvenile court found the children 

were dependents based on the conduct of the three parents: 

mother and the two fathers, J.E., and M.R.
15

“It is commonly said that the juvenile court takes 

jurisdiction over children, not parents.” (In re I.A. (2011) 201 

Cal.App.4th 1484, 1491, overruled in part by In re D.P., supra, 14 

Cal.5th 266.) “The law’s primary concern is the protection of 

children. [Citations.] The court asserts jurisdiction with respect 

to a child when one of the statutory prerequisites listed in section 

300 has been demonstrated.” (Ibid.)

“As a result of this focus on the child, it is necessary only 

for the court to find that one parent’s conduct has created 

circumstances triggering section 300 for the court to assert 

jurisdiction over the child. [Citations.] Once the child is found to 

be endangered in the manner described by one of the subdivisions 

of section 300—e.g., a risk of serious physical harm (subds. (a) & 

(b)), serious emotional damage (subd. (c)), sexual or other abuse 

(subds. (d) & (e)), or abandonment (subd. (g)), among others—the 

child comes within the court’s jurisdiction, even if the child was 

not in the physical custody of one or both parents at the time the 

jurisdictional events occurred. [Citation.] For jurisdictional 

purposes, it is irrelevant which parent created those 

circumstances. A jurisdictional finding involving the conduct of a 

particular parent is not necessary for the court to enter orders 

binding on that parent, once dependency jurisdiction has been 

established. [Citation.] As a result, it is commonly said that a 

jurisdictional finding involving one parent is ‘“good against both. 

More accurately, the minor is a dependent if the actions of either 

parent bring [him] within one of the statutory definitions of a 

dependent.”’” (In re I.A., supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1491-

1492.)

An appellate court, therefore, may decline to address the 

evidentiary support for one jurisdictional finding if another single 
16

finding has support. (In re I.A., supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at 

p. 1492.) For example, in In re I.A., the father challenged only the 

evidentiary support for the jurisdictional findings based on his 

conduct. He did not challenge juvenile court’s findings that it had 

jurisdiction over the children based on the evidence of the 

mother’s drug abuse. The court found the father’s appeal could 

not obtain any relief because, even if the findings concerning his 

conduct lacked evidentiary support, it could not reverse the 

juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders.

Mother’s appeal is similarly defective because mother did 

not address the findings regarding J.E. or M.R. J.E. pleaded no 

contest to the claim that he had been unable to provide regular 

care of the children due to his mental illness, developmental 

disability, or substance abuse. The January 12, 2022 minute 

order shows that counts B3, B5, and J1 were sustained as 

pleaded and counts B1, B2, and B4 were sustained as amended 

based on the no contest plea entered by J.E. This included the 

claim that J.E. had struck a woman with a hammer while in the 

presence of the children. The court found that the portions of the 

counts that referred to J.E. were true as alleged or amended.

The court also sustained counts as to M.R. that alleged 

M.R. had failed or was unable to supervise or protect the children 

due to his substance abuse.

Mother’s appeal does not challenge these findings. Since 

the children are dependents of the court if the actions of any 

parent bring them within one of the statutory definitions of a 

dependent jurisdictional finding, the findings for J.E. and M.R.

are sufficient to make the children dependents. Mother’s appeal 

cannot obtain relief because, even if the findings against her lack 

evidentiary support, the jurisdictional findings will not be 
17

reversed. The juvenile court will retain jurisdiction over the 

children because of the findings concerning J.E. and M.R.

In addition, the court found that DCFS had established its 

counts under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j), for all three 

children. “‘When a dependency petition alleges multiple grounds 

for its assertion that a minor comes within the dependency 

court’s jurisdiction, a reviewing court can affirm the juvenile 

court’s finding of jurisdiction over the minor if any one of the 

statutory bases for jurisdiction that are enumerated in the 

petition is supported by substantial evidence. In such a case, the 

reviewing court need not consider whether any or all of the other 

alleged statutory grounds for jurisdiction are supported by the 

evidence.’” (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773.) Mother’s 

opening brief addresses only the findings in support of

subdivision (b). She does not identify any basis to find that the 

juvenile court did not have substantial evidence to support its 

finding in support of subdivision (j). Since only one subdivision of 

section 300 is needed to find the children dependents of the court, 

mother has not shown grounds to reverse the jurisdictional order 

of January 12, 2022.

II. Substantial evidence supports the finding of 

jurisdiction

A. Applicable law and standard of review

A child may be adjudged a dependent of the court under 

section 300, subdivision (b)(1), if the “child has suffered, or there 

is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical 

harm or illness, as a result of . . . [¶] [t]he failure or inability of 

the child’s parent . . . to adequately supervise or protect the 

child.”
18

The “‘three elements’” for jurisdiction under section 300, 

subdivision (b) are “‘(1) neglectful conduct by the parent in one of 

the specified forms; (2) causation; and (3) “serious physical harm 

or illness” to the minor, or a “substantial risk” of such harm or 

illness.’” (In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 628.) “‘The court need 

not wait until a child is seriously abused or injured to assume 

jurisdiction and take the steps necessary to protect the child.’” (In 

re I.J., supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 773.)

In reviewing the jurisdictional findings and the disposition, 

we look to see if substantial evidence, contradicted or 

uncontradicted, supports them. (In re Tania S. (1992) 5 

Cal.App.4th 728, 733.) Under this standard, we must view the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s order, 

drawing every reasonable inference in support of the judgment. 

(In re Marina S. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 158, 165.) We do not 

reweigh evidence. (Ibid.)

B. Evidence of mother’s substance abuse and the 

history of domestic violence established 

jurisdiction

Mother argued there was no evidence that her marijuana 

use caused any harm to the children. She testified she had not 

used alcohol since July 2021, she had last smoked marijuana in 

August or September 2021, and she had enrolled in an outpatient 

program for substance abuse education.

The jurisdictional hearing, however, occurred only months 

later, in January 2022. The evidence showed that mother had 

tested positive for marijuana as recently as November 22 and 

December 6, 2021. Mother testified that until she stopped in 

August or September of 2021, she had used marijuana weekly

and only when the children were with her sister or a 
19

grandmother. The DCFS report, however, contained statements 

from the children that they had seen her smoking. In addition, 

M.R. had reported that mother smoked marijuana every day and 

drank alcohol every morning before she slept for the rest of the 

day while working nights. Mother’s frequent marijuana use, with 

the children present, coupled with her day sleeping after smoking 

and drinking in the morning is substantial evidence that her 

substance abuse could result in lack of adequate supervision and 

care. This evidence identifies potential neglectful conduct that 

could cause a substantial risk of harm if the children are not 

properly supervised. The juvenile court also noted that it was 

early in mother’s recovery from a lengthy and frequent habit of 

using marijuana and that a risk of future harm existed because 

relapses are common.

Mother also argued that the evidence of domestic violence 

was insufficient because she was no longer in a relationship with 

M.R., and she had completed domestic violence courses. The 

juvenile court, however, based its findings on a history of 

domestic violence between mother and M.R. This included 

mother as the aggressor when she vandalized M.R.’s vehicles, 

and with M.R. as the aggressor, such as when he broke windows 

and battered the door at maternal aunt’s home in his effort to 

enter the place where the children were staying. This conduct 

created a substantial risk of harm to the children.

Although the evidence showed mother did not want a 

relationship with M.R., it also showed he continued to want to 

visit the children and was not taking advantage of services 

needed to improve his substance abuse problem. The juvenile 

court acknowledged mother’s efforts but found that the children 

had been exposed to years of violence with M.R. and a risk of 
20

future harm remained. This conduct could cause substantial 

harm to the children if they are present.

The juvenile court, therefore, had substantial evidence to 

support its finding that it had jurisdiction over the children 

because there were circumstances that subjected the children to a 

risk of harm.

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s jurisdictional order is affirmed.

________________________

CHAVEZ, J.

We concur:

________________________

LUI, P. J.

________________________

ASHMANN-GERST, J.