Filed 3/5/14 In re Jadyn L. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 JADYN L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. B249181

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

v. HEATHER M. et al., Defendants and Appellants. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK94442)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Valerie Skeba, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.

______ Marsha F. Levine, under appointment by the Court of Appeal , for Defendant and Appellant Heather M. Jamie A. Moran, under ap pointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Curt L. John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Navid Nakhjavani, Deputy County Coun sel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

______2 Heather M. (Mother) and Curt L. (Fathe r) appeal from the j udgment entered after the juvenile court declared their son, born in April 2008, a dependent of the court under
Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) 1 , and made dispositional findings. Mother and Father contend that substantial evidence does not support the jurisdictional determinations and that the j uvenile court erred by removing the child from their custody. We disagree and thus affirm the order.
FACTUAL AND PROCED URAL BACKGROUND
1. The Events Leading to the Section 300 Petition On November 21, 2012, the child’s maternal grandmother contacted the Department of Children and Family Servic es (DCFS), reporting “t hat there is [an] ongoing domestic violence relationship between [the] parents. There’s a lot of yelling, screaming and name calling by father on the mo ther in the presence of the child. The situation escalated to a point that the moth er and her son . . . left 2 weeks ago and temporarily moved in with [the maternal grandmother]. [¶] [On the] morning [of the call to DCFS], father came to visit and told the mother that he is bringing the child to Universal Studios. However, as soon as he picked up the child, he called and told the
mother that she cannot have th e child back and she needs[] [t]o get a Court order to have him back. [¶] [The maternal grandmother] desc ribed the father as ‘unstable’ and ‘crazy’ but never been diagnosed and . . . did not ela borate. [She] indicated that the father is putting the child in the middle of the parent[s’] conflict.” Later that day, a social worker visited Fa ther and his son at Fa ther’s mobile home. Father said he and Mother had lived together for about 10 years. A few weeks earlier, on November 4, Mother left the home, without te lling Father why, and did not take the child, then four years old, with her. Father denied any verbal or physic al altercation between
himself and Mother when Mother left the hom e. The following day, Father took the child to the maternal grandmother’s house, where Mo ther was staying, and left him there.

1 Statutory references are to th e Welfare and Institutions Code.3 Father denied any abuse or neglect of the child, as well as domestic violence
between himself and Mother. Fa ther “did admit that he ha d a drug history of abusing methamphetamine and speed. He claimed he has been out of jail more than a year and is not on parole or probation. He claimed he does not dr ink alcohol or use illicit drugs
because if he did he would ‘d ie[.][’] He denied current drug use. . . . [¶] The father claimed he had surgery in April of [2012] fo r a brain aneurysm and has a genetic liver condition and drinking or using drugs would have an adverse impact on his health. . . . [¶] . . . [Father said] both [h e and Mother] were using meth amphetamine and marijuana, but the father claimed they have never used illicit drugs in the pr esence of the child . . . .
The father stated that he an d the mother would routinely us e methamphetamine together.
He stated he last used with the mother in June 2012. [¶] Th e father claimed that when the mother was living with him she would leave [the child] with him frequently while she would go out with other men in the mobile home park. The father claimed he believes the mother smokes ‘pot[,][’] but the mother has never smoke d around [the child].”
The social worker also interviewed th e maternal grandmother, who “stated the mother was living with her for the past fe w weeks because [the mother] was not getting along with the father. She stated she has never known th e father and the mother to physically fight, but she believes there is a lo t of arguing between them in the presence of the child . . . . [¶] She also st ated she is aware the father ha s a drug history and is aware that the mother has a drug history, but has never seen the parents use illicit drugs.” The maternal grandmother “suspects the moth er is using illicit drugs given her recent behavior as the mother has a long history of drug use and the maternal grandmother has learned to recognize the signs.” The maternal grandmother informed the social worker that she has a legal guardianship ov er the mother’s two other children, then ages 16 and 18, half siblings of the child. “[I]n the year 2000 mother wa s residing with [the maternal grandmother] . . . along with [those two children] and the mother was neglecting the needs of the ch ildren so she told mother to move out and she kept the children. Mother never appear ed in court so [the matern al grandmother] was granted4 legal guardianship. . . . DCFS was never involv ed with the half[-]sib lings and their father
is deceased.” On November 27, Father te sted positive for marijuana. On that same day, the maternal grandmother informed the social wo rker that Mother had been incarcerated on
November 25 for outsta nding bench warrants. Father, the maternal grandmother and the maternal aunt attended a team decision making meeting on November 29. Mother did not attend, as she still was incarcerated. Father “admitted to a forty[-] year history of illicit drug use and that during his time with
the mother he and the mother abused methamphetamine and marijuana.” Father refused
to consent to a detention of the child a nd left the meeting without the child, who
remained with the ma ternal grandmother.
Mother contacted the social worker on December 4. Moth er was arrested for three outstanding bench warrants, one for riding public transportati on without a ticket, one for smoking in a non-smoking zone and one for an arrest several years prior for possession of methamphetamine and failure to show proof of completion of a drug counseling program.
Mother had a court date on December 18 to provide the proof of completion. Mother “stated she does have a methamphetamine histor y . . . [that] goes back about ten years. She stated she stopped using methamphetamine wh en she was pregnant with her son . . . . She stated she also has used marijuana, but has not used marijuana for about two or
three months. She stated she has never used marijuana in the presen ce of [the child].”
Mother denied domestic violence in her re lationship with Father. Mother did not complete her interview with the social worker, as she e nded her call with the social
worker and failed to ca ll back as promised. Later that day, DCFS obtained a remova l order for the child because “DCFS could not ensure the safety of the child . . . under th e care of the parents due [in part] to . . . the parents[’] history of metham phetamine and marijuana use a nd the father’s positive test for marijuana on 11/27/12.” Th e child was detained and placed with his maternal aunt.
A search was initiated on Decem ber 5 to locate Mother.5 2. The Section 300 Petition and the Detention Hearing On December 7, DCFS filed a petition unde r section 300, subdivision (b). As to Mother, the petition alleged, “The child[’s] . . . moth er . . . has a ten[-]year history of illicit drug abuse, and is a cu rrent abuser of methampheta mine and marijuana, which renders the mother unable to provide regular ca re and supervision of the child. On prior occasions, the mother was under the influen ce of illicit drugs while the child was in the mother’s care and supervision.” As to Fa ther, the petition alleged, “The child[’s] . . . father . . . has a forty[-]year history of illicit drug abuse, and is a current abuser of methamphetamine and marijuana, which renders the father unable to provide regular care and supervision of the child. On 11/27/2012, the father had a positiv e toxicology screen for marijuana. On prior oc casions, the father was under the influence of illicit drugs
while the child was in the father’s care and supervision.” At the detention hearing, also on Decem ber 7, at which both Mother and Father appeared, the juvenile court found a prim a facie case for de taining the child, no reasonable means to protect the child without removal and reasonable efforts to prevent
or eliminate the need for rem oval. The court continued the child’s placement with the maternal aunt. It granted Mother and Father monitored vi sitation and family
reunification services and ordered them to submit to random and on-demand drug testing.
3. Jurisdiction and Disposition In the jurisdiction and di sposition report, filed on Janu ary 10, 2013, DCFS stated that despite its attempts to locate Mother it had been unabl e to interview her. Father
refused to be interviewed without his attorn ey present. DCFS reported possession of a
controlled substance for Mother in 2007 and several convictions for Father in 2008, two for possession of a controlled s ubstance and one for burglary. According to the maternal aunt, Mother “‘has a long hi story of using drugs on and off. She will clean up for a while and then go back to the drugs. She did rehab a few years ago and she did really well after she got ou t; but she eventually s lipped back into it. As far as [the maternal aunt] know[s], [Mother] just uses pot and meth. She won’t even talk to [the maternal aunt] since all of th is happened because she blames everyone for6 what is going on. [The child ] hasn’t mentioned anything ab out [his parents’] drug use since he has been [with the maternal aunt]. [Mother’s] behavior now is like it was when she was using drugs in the past. When . . . at Court, she was mentally unstable and her behavior was really odd. [The maternal aunt does not] think [the child has] been abused by [his parents], . . . just . . . seen and been exposed to a lot of stuff that he shouldn’t have.’” As for Father, the maternal aunt reported, “‘I know [Father] has a long drug history as well. I know he smokes pot and he has done meth with [Mother].” The maternal grandmother reported that, wh en Mother was stayi ng with her in the weeks before the DCFS referral, Mother “‘would be up for two to three days at a time and then sleep for three to f our days. [The maternal gr andmother does not] know if [Mother] is using meth agai n because [she] didn’t see an y sores on [Mother’s] face like last time; but, [she has not] seen [Mother] si nce Court. [Mother] has been blaming all of this on [the maternal grandmother], of c ourse. [The maternal grandmother] know[s] [Mother] used meth before and smokes pot but [does not] know if she is still smoking pot. As a mother, you don’t want to see the signs but [she] ha[s] be en looking and [she] [doesn’t] know if [Mother] is using again. When [Mother] wa s [staying with the maternal grandmother] she was yelling and cu r[s]ing at [the child] and [the maternal grandmother] was very upset about that.’” The maternal grandmot her said, “‘I know [Father] smokes pot and I think [Mother and Fa ther] used meth together. There was one time last summer that I caught him in my garage smoking pot and I told them that they had to leave. I heard that he has a prescrip tion for the pot because of his brain aneurism
but I don’t know how true that is.’” DCFS reported that a dental examination on December 19 revealed that the child had seven untreated cavities. During a physi cal examination on January 14, vaccines were administered, as the child “has not ha d routine health care and he was behind in some immunizations. Maternal aunt reported his last immunization records show his last appointment was on 10/09/2009[,]” more than three years a go. On January 3, the maternal aunt reported that Mother had ca lled three times since the December 7 court
date but had not visited the ch ild and that Father had vis ited once and called every day.7 After the juvenile court ordered DCFS to interview Father, DCFS filed a supplemental report, dated March 19, indicati ng that it made numerous attempts to reach
Father but had been unsuccessful and learned from Father’s attorney that Father had not responded to calls from his attorney. DCFS’ s last contact with Father was January 2
when Father refused to be interviewed with out his attorney present. DCFS had not spoken to Mother sin ce December 4 despite numerous atte mpts to reach her as well. Mother too did not respond to calls from her attorney. Although the social worker reached Father on March 18, he refused to speak to the social worker without his attorney present. Neither parent submitted to drug testing. The maternal aunt reported that recently Mother and Father called the child once a week, now together, but had not
visited him. In a further supplemental report, filed on April 8, DCFS reported that Mother had stated that she stopped using methampheta mine, around 2007, before she became pregnant with the child. Mother said she had been arrested for possession of methamphetamine before the ch ild was born and ordered to complete a drug program in 2009 or 2010. She stated, “‘When I was using, I used once a month or twice a month. I
don’t know how much I would use. I would usually snort one line. For a while there, it got to be a lot; well, not a lot, maybe three lines a month off and on for five or six years. It wasn’t consistent; it was an off and on thin g but all before I was pregnant with [the child]. I don’t know why the father said th at we would use meth routinely together and last used in June 2012; that’s not true . [¶] I last used marijuana in September or October 2012. I would smoke at my friend [’s] . . . house. . . . I never smoked in our home. I’m not sure where [the child] was when I was smoking; maybe with my mom or
his father. I have never done any other drugs. I obtained my marijuana license a couple of months ago because I have a really bad back problem. I got the license but I don’t use it. I haven’t tried or used any other drugs in the last six months.’” Father stated, Mother “‘hasn’t got[ten] high on methamphetamine since the kid was born. She would use methamphetamine once a month to my knowledge. Occasionally, maybe, she smoked marijuana but I’m not sure on that. I don’t know even the last time she used marijuana.8 We last used meth together over five ye ars ago. We smoked marijuana years ago together. I didn’t know that she was sm oking marijuana around September or October
2012.’” As to Father, Mother stated he used me thamphetamine on occasion as she did, but quit before she became pregnant with the child. Father “‘ does have a marijuana license because he has two brain aneurisms, [chr onic obstructive pulmonary disorder], and
hemochromatosis.’” Father sa id that he “‘started using me th when [he] was 18 years old and [he] went into the servic e. [He] smoke[s] marijuana but . . . [has not] smoked pot for a couple of weeks. [He] last used meth almost five years ago. When [he] was using, [he] would use meth once every four or five months over the last forty years. [He has] use[d] marijuana once in [a] while over the last couple of years.’” DCFS indicated that on March 19 the parent s were spoken to regarding visitation, drug testing and referrals. The social worker offered to come to their home to provide them with bus passes, drug testing, referrals , visitation schedules and case plan referrals. The parents declined until they could speak to their attorneys. Father stated he lacked the ability to come to the DCFS office to obtain the referrals . Mother and Father both indicated they would contact their attorneys for approval for the social worker to come to the home and call the social worker back, but neither got in touch again with the social worker. DCFS arranged a visitation sc hedule and mailed it to the parents. At the adjudication hearing on April 29, the juvenile court, after considering the reports and exhibits and hear ing testimony from Mother, concluded that “when this case came in [DCFS] had some legitimate concerns about drug use by the parents. Father has a very, very lengthy criminal background, in cluding a conviction . . . where he was sent to state prison. . . . It includes possession of a controlled substance. And he got sent to state prison for a couple of y ears. Mother also has some criminal history involving drugs. . . . I think [DCFS] has some legitima te concerns about pare nts’ lengthy substance abuse histories, both of them. Father’s more so than mother’s. . . . I ordered the parents to randomly drug-test on [December 7, the day the petition was filed]. So mother’s
statements that she doesn’t know that she wa s supposed to drug-test, I just don’t find very9 believable. With respect to grandmother’s st atements, I think she was being very honest. I do think she had some legitim ate concerns. The behaviors that she described, the staying up for days at a time, and then sleeping for days at a time is very indicative of
substance abuse. I don’t find mother’s statem ents that she was just depressed because of
the issues with the fath er to be very persuasive. And it appears that grandmother has seen this behavior over the years a number of times.” The juvenile court further determined, “With respect to the statements by parents’ counsel that there’s really no ne xus, I would disagree with that . Mother testified that the
last time she saw a doctor for [the child] was two years ago. Actually, . . . it’s more like three, and that he was behind with his . . . im munizations. Mother said that the last time the child saw a dentist was a year and a half ago. The child had seven cavities. This child is only four years old. That’s pretty bad. Somebody is neglecting that child. And since mother says that he was in her custod y the entire time, and it seems like father was partially involved in taking care of the child, yo u know, that’s really th e parents’ neglect. So I think that parents’ drug use did affect the child. . . . [U]nder no circumstances should a four-year-old have seven cavities. And the lack of seeing a doctor is very concerning, because children of this age need to be seen by a physician on a regular basis. As well as a dentist. And it does appear that he has so me speech delays[,] whic h need to be worked on. So I do think the parents have a substance abuse history.” As to drug testing and visita tion, the juvenile court found, “And the fact that [the parents] basically refuse to test, I can’t draw a positive inference from that. You know, the case has been here quite a while now. . . . Over four months. And the fact that the parents haven’t tested at all, not once, is pr etty concerning. If you add on top of that
the limitation in visitation—I think one of them visited one time. I think it was father.
Mother hasn’t visited at all. That is also very concerning, because these are all types of behaviors you see from people who are—have a substance abuse issue and are attempting to hide it. And father, who cannot get to dr ug testing here in Lancaster, is able to get down to Tujunga and get a medi cal marijuana card. Now, I always have concerns when people get a medical marijuana card after the case has been filed. I would question10 whether this doctor knows much about father’s history. . . . So I didn’t find the mother’s testimony to be very persuasive at all. I do think [DCFS] has tried to give [the parents] referrals, [it has] tried to provide services, and the parent s have just refused. They did have the ability to test without the transportation issues fo r the first couple of months of
the case after I had ordered them to test on D ecember 7th. They didn’t test then. Now they’ve moved to a place where testing will be difficult. But they had the ability earlier, and they didn’t do it then either.” Based on these conclusions, the juvenile court declared the ch ild a dependent of the court under section 300, subdivision (b ), found removal from his parents’ care appropriate and contin ued his placement with the maternal aunt. The court amended the language in the section 300, subdivision (b), a llegation as to Mother and as to Father to
eliminate the words “a current abuser” and fo cus on the “history of illicit drug abuse,” adding the words “including use” of methampheta mine and marijuana. It ordered an ondemand test for the parents that day, as well as substance abuse coun seling, with random and on-demand drug testing, and “parenting and individual counseling to address substance abuse issues and relationship issues.” It also ordered the parents to allow the
social worker to come to th eir home to help them in obtaining services and determining where to drug test. Mother and Father each filed a timely notic e of appeal. (§ 395, subd. (a)(1); see In re Tracy Z. (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 107, 112 [juris dictional findings reviewable on appeal from the judgment following disposition].)
DISCUSSION Mother and Father contend that the evidence is insuffici ent to support the jurisdictional findings under section 300, s ubdivision (b), and th at, in any case, the juvenile court should not have removed the child from their care. We disagree. “The purpose of section 300 is ‘to iden tify those children over whom the juvenile court may exercise its jurisdiction and adjudge dependents.’ [Citation.]” ( In re A.O. (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 103, 110.) To declare a child a dependent un der section 300, the juvenile court must find by a preponderance of the evidence th at the allegations are true.11 ( In re Matthew S. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1311, 1318; see § 355, subd. (a).) We review the court’s findings under section 300 for substantial evidence and will affirm the judgment based on those findings if they are supported by reasonable, credible evidence of solid value. ( Matthew S. , at p. 1319.) Under section 300, subdivision (b), th e juvenile court may adjudge a child a dependent of the court when “[t]he child ha s 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 . . . to adequate ly supervise or protect the child . . . .” “A jurisdictional finding under section 300, su bdivision (b)[,] requires: ‘“(1) neglectful conduct by the parent in one of the specified forms; (2) causation; and (3) ‘serious physical harm or illness’ to the child, or a ‘substantial risk’ of such harm or illness.” [Citation.]’ [Citations.]” ( In re James R. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 129, 135.) When the jurisdictional finding is “based on the parent ’s ‘inability . . . to adequately supervise or protect the child[]’” DCFS must show “parental unfitness or neglectful conduct.” ( In re Precious D. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1251, 1254.) As relevant, the sustained section 300, subdivision (b), allegation against Mother provided that Mother “has a ten[-]year history of illicit dr ug abuse, including use of methamphetamine and marijuana, which render s the mother unable to provide regular care and supervision of the child.” Substantial evidence supports the sustained allegation. As of the adjudication hearing on April 29, 2013, Mother had not drug tested once since being ordered to do so on December 7, 2012, and she had not visited the child at all. She admitted a lengthy history of drug use, but said that she had stopped using methamphetamine before becoming pregnant with the child. Both the maternal grandmother and maternal aunt, however, re cognized signs of drug use in her. In particular, when Mother stayed with the maternal grandmothe r just before inception of the dependency proceedings, she stayed awake for several days and then slept for several days. In addition, Father reported on one occasion that he and Mother had used methamphetamine in June 2012, bu t later indicated, as Mother had, that they had not used the drug after Mother became pregnant with the child. Mother adm itted to marijuana use12 in September and October 2012. Mother did not provide the child with regular medical care, causing him to be behind on his immunizations, as the child did not see a doctor for routine care from the time he was one year ol d until he was four ye ars old and under the
care of maternal aunt. Mother also did not provide the child with regular dental care. He had seven untreated cavities at the age of four years. DCFS was unable to locate Mother at certain times, Mother refused to a llow the social worker to come to her home and Mother did not maintain regular contact with DCFS or her a ttorney. During the dependency proceedings, she was incarcerated for a s hort period of time, in part because she had failed to submit proof of completion of a substance abuse program ordered based on a drug possession charge. Mother did no t obtain such proof during the dependency proceedings. As relevant to Father, the sustained alle gation under section 300, subdivision (b), provided that Father “has a forty[-]year history of illicit drug abus e, including use of methamphetamine and marijuana, which renders the father unable to provide regular care and supervision of the child. On 11/27/2012, the father had a positiv e toxicology screen for marijuana.” Substantial ev idence supports this allegation as well. Father admitted to 40 years of using drugs. Although he later ch anged the dates, he initially acknowledged using methamphetamine as late as June 20 12. He tested positive for marijuana in November 2012, just after DCFS became involve d with the child, and then never tested again during the dependency pr oceedings. He said he woul d die if he used illicit drugs because of his health issues, but was usi ng methamphetamine and marijuana regardless and obtained a medical marijuana card. He has two convictions for possession of a controlled substance, as well as a burglary convictio n, and was previously incarcerated. He called the child regularly, but visite d him only once during the dependency proceedings. Father also faile d to ensure that the child re ceived regular, routine medical
and dental care when the child was in his custody. Like Mo ther, Father refused to allow
the social worker to co me to his home to provide referrals and failed to maintain regular contact with DCFS or his attorney.13 Mother’s and Father’s argument that, even if jurisdictio n were proper, the juvenile court should not have removed the child from their cu stody pursuant to section 361, subdivision (c)(1), also fails. 2 As noted, Mother and Father were using drugs in the months before inception of th e dependency proceedings and never tested once after DCFS had initiated the proceedi ngs. They both adm itted lengthy drug histories. They failed to visit their son, w ith Father visiting only once and Mother not visiting at all. They did not provide th e child with regular, routine medical and dental care when he was in their custody. Under these circumstances, substantial evidence supports the court’s removal deci sion under section 361, subdivision (c)(1). ( In re Henry V. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 522, 529 [revi ew standard for removal decision under § 361, subd. (c)(1), is substantial evidence].) 3

2 Section 361, subdivision (c)(1), provides th at a juvenile court can order removal of a dependent child from his or her parent’s physical custody upon clear and convincing evidence that “[t]here is or wo uld be a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-bei ng of the minor if the minor were returned home, and there are no reasona ble means by which the minor’s physical health can be protected without removing the minor from the minor’s parent’s . . . physical custody.”

3 Father also contends that the juvenile court’s modification of the allegation against him in sustaining the petition demonstrates that the court failed to “maintain impartiality” and denied him the right to a “full and fair hearing.” We disagree. The allegation as pleaded against Father incorpor ated two concepts, first that Father had a 40-year history of illicit drug abuse and second that Father wa s a current abuser of methamphetamine and marijuana, both of which rendered him unable to provide regular care and supervision of the child. In modifying the allegation, the co urt merely struck the words “and is a current abuser,” deciding not to sustain the allega tion on that basis and inserted the words “including use” so that the allegation read cohe rently to provide that Father’s history of illicit drug abuse, including use of methamphetamine and marijuana, rendered him unable to provide regular care and supervision of th e child. Such modification did not alter the concept of a history of illic it drug abuse alleged agains t Father in the petition.14 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

ROTHSCHILD, Acting P. J.

We concur:

CHANEY, J.

MILLER, J. *

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