Filed 4/16/15 In re Reece W. CA2/4 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION FOUR 

In re REECE W., 

a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 B255872 

 (Los Angeles County 

 Super. Ct. No. DK02562) 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT 

OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

THOMAS W., 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Julie 

F. Blackshaw, Judge. Affirmed. 

 John L. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant. 

 Richard D. Weiss, Acting County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant 

County Counsel, and Kim Nemoy, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and 

Respondent. 
2

INTRODUCTION 

 Father, Thomas W., appeals from dependency court orders sustaining 

jurisdictional allegations that his son, Reece W., is a person described by Welfare 

and Institutions Code section 300 (section 300) and removing him from Father’s 

custody. Father contends there is no substantial evidence that Reece suffered or is 

at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm such that he falls within 

section 300, subdivision (b). We disagree and affirm the jurisdictional and 

dispositional orders. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

A. Procedural Background 

 The Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a 

dependency petition alleging two counts as to Father under section 300, 

subdivision (b). First, the petition alleged that Father “has mental and emotional 

problems including a suicide attempt in 2009, which renders the father unable to 

provide regular care and supervision of the child. On 11/29/2013, the father was 

involuntarily hospitalized for the evaluation and treatment of the father’s 

psychiatric condition. The mother knew of the father’s mental and emotional 

problems and failed to protect the child, in that the father had unlimited access to 

the child. Such mental and emotional problems on the part of the father endangers 

the child’s physical health and safety and places the child at risk of physical harm, 

damage, danger and failure to protect.” Second, it was alleged that Father “placed 

the child in a detrimental and endangering home environment in that 3 shot guns, 

one fully loaded, 4 rifles, scopes, gunpowder, a laser sight, a bullet machine, gun 

simulators and 1000 rounds of ammunition were found in the child’s home, within 

access of the child. The father has criminal convictions of Disorderly Conduct – 
3

Prostitution, Obstruct/Resist Police Officer, Assault on Custodial Officer, Assault 

With a Deadly Weapon, Battery, Driving While Under the Influence, Violating a 

Restraining Order and False Identification to a Peace Officer. The mother knew of 

the endangering situation and failed to protect the child, in that the mother 

purchased the guns, knowing that father is on probation and not able to have own 

[sic] or have access to weapons. Such a detrimental and endangering home 

environment established for the child by the father, and the mother’s failure to 

protect, endangers the child’s physical health and safety, creates a detrimental 

home environment, and places the children at risk of physical harm, damage, 

danger and failure to protect.” 

 At the detention hearing, Reece was ordered detained from Father and was 

placed with Mother, Elaine W., who is married to Father. The court ordered 

monitored visitation for Father, who had moved out of the family home. 

 At the contested adjudication hearing, the court admitted into evidence the 

following: (1) a December 4, 2013 detention report, subject to some sustained 

objections to hearsay in that report; (2) a February 6, 2014 jurisdiction/disposition 

report, subject to some sustained hearsay objections; (3) a last minute report dated 

February 6, 2014; and (4) a last minute report dated April 21, 2014. In addition, 

Father called two of the family’s neighbors to testify at the hearing. 

 The court found true both counts in the dependency petition. The court thus 

found that Reece was a person described by section 300, subdivision (b) and 

declared him a dependent child. The court also removed Reece from Father’s 

custody and ordered monitored visitation. 

 Father timely appealed. 
4

B. Evidence at the Jurisdictional and Disposition Hearing

1. First Referral 

 Reece first came to the attention of DCFS in January 2013, when DCFS 

received a referral indicating that Father had gotten into two arguments in public in 

front of Reece and had been removed from a ballpark. At that time, Reece denied 

being fearful of either parent, but stated that his parents frequently yelled at each 

other and sometimes Mother would come into Reece’s room crying to get away 

from the arguing. Mother denied there were any firearms in the home. The 

caseworker was never given access to the home, and Father refused to cooperate. 

When approached outside his home by the caseworker, Father twice told her to 

“get the f--- out of here and to f--- off” and then got into his car and drove off. He 

was reported to be odd and abrasive and to have ongoing problems with his 

neighbors. However, the dependency allegations were deemed unfounded.1

2. Second Referral 

a. Father’s Discharge of Firearm

 DCFS received a second referral regarding Reece after law enforcement 

responded to his family’s home on November 27, 2013, when multiple neighbors 

heard gunshots that they believed came from the home.2

 The Los Angeles Police 

 

1

 Both parties’ briefs reference evidence regarding this first DCFS investigation as 

well as other evidence that is not part of the record because the dependency court ordered 

it excluded on hearsay grounds upon Father’s motion. Accordingly, we neither reference 

those facts in our opinion nor consider them in determining whether jurisdiction was 

appropriately exercised over Reece. 

2

 Approximately 15 minutes before the police received 911 calls about the gunshots, 

a neighbor had called the police to report loud music coming from speakers in the tree at 

the same home. 
5

Department (LAPD) had responded to the home in the past and Father was known 

to have firearms. When law enforcement arrived at the home, they contacted 

Father by phone. Father denied firing shots, refused to cooperate, and barricaded 

himself inside the home. The Metropolitan Special Weapons and Tactics Division 

arrived and Father surrendered only after a two and a half hour standoff. In the 

course of their search of the home, the police located a large safe, and asked Father 

to open it so that they could verify there were no guns in it. Father said the safe 

belonged to his wife and he did not know the combination. The officers obtained a 

search warrant permitting them to force open the safe, but before they opened it by 

force, Mother arrived at home and provided the combination. 

 The following firearms and materials used to manufacture ammunition were 

found inside the safe: three shotguns (one of which was fully loaded), four rifles, 

more than 1000 rounds of ammunition, multiple scopes, gunpowder, a bullet 

machine, a laser sight, and gun simulators. Four spent shotgun rounds were found 

on the floor of the safe. Three boxes of rifle bullet projectile were found in 

Father’s bedroom. 

 Father was involuntarily hospitalized on a psychiatric “5150 hold” in 2013 

pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 5150, and law enforcement 

planned to arrest him upon his discharge. He remained in the hospital for seven 

days. Several months later, he was arrested on an outstanding warrant, then 

released on his own recognizance and ordered to stay away from the family home. 

 LAPD Detective Slider initially informed DCFS that Father had been 

involuntarily hospitalized in 2009 for suicidal thoughts, leading to that allegation 

being included in the dependency petition, but LAPD Officer Wolleck later 

informed DCFS that the information was incorrect. 
6

b. Father’s Prior Involvement with Law Enforcement

 According to Officer Wolleck, at the time of the firearm discharge incident, 

Father previously had been listed as a suspect or victim in over 100 crime reports 

made to the same police station. What began as noise complaints and charges of 

disturbing the peace had escalated to charges of trespass, assault, battery, 

vandalism, verbal threats, assault with a deadly weapon, and violation of a court 

order. For several years Father had accused his neighbors of conducting illegal 

narcotics trafficking in the neighborhood. He claimed to be working with the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation against the “Cartel.” He also claimed that he was 

the subject of constant surveillance. In 2010, the LAPD received information that 

Father had obtained a shotgun and was keeping it in his garage or near his front 

door. Consequently, his address was entered into a system as a “special location” 

requiring a supervisor to respond to his residence every time he called the police. 

 Three neighbors had active criminal protective orders pending against 

Father, and Father had a restraining order against one of them, but the existence of 

restraining orders had done little to dispel the continuing conflict in the 

neighborhood. 

 Brian and Rmesios Shahbaghlian, neighbors who live across the street from 

Father’s home, stated that the previous owner also had a restraining order against 

him. Father had not bothered the Shahbaghlians, but on several occasions he had 

been seen looking into their house with binoculars. They believed he might have a 

mental health issue which explained some of his bizarre behavior. Jack Singman, 

another neighbor who lived behind Father’s house, stated that he was not surprised 

that Father had discharged a gun at his home, as he had done strange things in the 

past, such as playing amplified music and accusing neighbors of selling drugs. 
7

 Any guns in Father’s home should have been surrendered after he was 

served with a restraining order in 2012. Moreover, due to a conviction in the 

summer of 2013 for violating a restraining order, he was prohibited from owning, 

purchasing, receiving, possessing or having custody or control of any firearm for 

10 years, and any violation of this prohibition constituted a felony. 

 Father’s previous criminal history included a 1987 conviction for disorderly 

conduct-prostitution, and 1995 convictions for assault with a deadly weapon, 

assault on a custody officer, battery, resisting arrest, and presenting false 

identification to a peace officer. He was also arrested for driving under the 

influence in 1997 and for assaulting a neighbor with a chemical agent in 2009. 

 Mother told LAPD detectives that most of the guns found in the safe were 

hers, but she was not able to provide a detailed description or provide any 

paperwork. She denied purchasing the guns for Father and stated she purchased 

them as an investment. She said that in 2011 or 2012, when Father was served 

with a restraining order, she gathered all the guns and gave them to a friend for 

safekeeping. When the order expired she brought them back to the home and 

changed the combination so that Father would not have access to them. She wrote 

the combination down on a piece of paper and hid it in the bill pile in her office. 

She surmised that Father must have found the combination in her office. She 

stated that the last time she accessed the safe was a year earlier when she 

purchased two of the rifles. However, a firearms trace report showed that Mother 

purchased one of the guns on November 19, 2013, less than two weeks before the 

incident. Mother stated she had no knowledge of the current restraining orders or 

of Father’s recent conviction for violating one of the restraining orders. 
8

c. DCFS Interviews with the Family 

 Two days after the shooting incident, while Father was still hospitalized, a 

DCFS caseworker interviewed Reece at the family’s home. Reece appeared to be 

timid and afraid and answered the caseworker’s questions in a robotic manner with 

a flat affect. He stated he was not at home at the time the gun was discharged. He 

stated that he had never seen any guns in the home, but said that Father taught him 

about gun safety and how to shoot a gun, although he denied that any gun was 

discharged during the lessons. He denied ever seeing Father act abnormally, and 

stated he was not afraid of him and that he felt happy and safe in his parents’ care. 

In a subsequent interview on January 21, 2014, Reece again denied that Father had 

ever done anything strange or unusual, and said he wanted his family to get back 

together. Reece denied that he had access to guns in his home and stated he did 

not know where they were stored. He said he had never gone shooting or hunting 

before, but that he will be able to learn more about it when he turns 16. 

 The DCFS caseworker contacted Father by phone while he was in the 

hospital. He stated he did not want to be interviewed in person and also said he 

would prefer that his attorney be present for any interview. However, before 

hanging up he volunteered that Reece was not present at the time of shooting, that 

Reece is treated very well, and that there are no problems in the home. He stated 

he would cooperate with DCFS but would not discuss the guns. 

 After Father was released, he did not make himself available for an 

interview, despite numerous attempts by the dependency investigator. It also 

proved difficult for DCFS to schedule monitored visits for Father and Reece. 

Father did not provide an address or phone number, and stated he could be reached 

by email. However, he frequently did not respond to emails attempting to schedule 

visits, or would respond too late. 
9

 Father attended the Team Decision Making (TDM) meeting on February 26, 

2014. He brought a book entitled “The Culture of Fear” and kept playing with the 

book on the table. He stated that DCFS should be aware of his participation in 

counseling and parenting classes, and he claimed that the failure of DCFS to report 

this information to the police led to his arrest. DCFS asked Father to sign a release 

of information form so that DCFS could receive information from his parenting 

class instructor and counselor, but Father stated he could not do so because it 

would violate the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). 

DCFS explained that Father could grant permission for DCFS to receive this 

information, but he refused. Father expressed his belief that DCFS “worked with 

LAPD to cross reference pseudo fear files based on falsehoods.” 

 After the TDM, DCFS attempted to interview Father regarding the 

allegations of the dependency petition. Father disputed the allegation that he had 

been suicidal and previously hospitalized (an allegation that LAPD had retracted as 

erroneous). Father stated he would not make any statements with respect to the 

criminal case against him based on his counsel’s advice and his own common 

sense. Father denied that he ever had been a danger to his son. The meeting 

concluded prematurely because another meeting was scheduled in the conference 

room, but it was agreed that DCFS would email Father so that he could provide a 

written response to the allegations in the petition. The caseworker emailed him 

later that day and stated that if Father provided a response or explanation regarding 

the allegations, they would be included in the next report for the court. Father’s 

email response stated, “Regarding B-1 and B-2: no comment due to ongoing 

criminal case.” Father also sent several emails to DCFS to the effect that state 

intervention in his family life was groundless and that he wanted to be reunified 

with his family as soon as possible. 
10

 In Mother’s initial interview with the DCFS caseworker, she stated that she 

and Reece were at a friend’s home at the time of the shooting incident. According 

to Mother, Father had been testing his gun’s “warranty” and this was the first time 

he had discharged a gun at home. Mother stated that the guns were kept in a 

locked case and were not accessible to Reece. She stated that law enforcement had 

removed all the guns the night of the incident. Mother denied any history of 

domestic violence and denied that Father had any prior history of mental health 

issues. 

 In a subsequent interview on January 21, 2014, Mother reported that she 

worked for herself from home and that Father cared for Reece at home. Mother 

stated that Father had not been employed for a long time, but he was not on 

disability. She stated that he isolated himself because he did not work. Although 

he was anti-social, she did not think he was paranoid or delusional. However, she 

stated that they had a 16-camera surveillance system and he spent time watching 

the cameras. Mother had this system installed after someone kept destroying their 

property, including bashing her gates and slashing her tires. Mother had wanted a 

simple camera but Father wanted the 16-camera system. 

 According to Mother, most of Father’s criminal convictions were the result 

of an incident before Reece was born that occurred while she and Father were 

walking their dog, when Father got into an altercation with another couple walking 

their dog. Father’s criminal record made it difficult for him to find work and he 

was not allowed to do community service with children or the elderly. Father 

could not let go of his anger about the situation. 

 Mother stated that she did not know Father’s diagnosis after his involuntary 

hospitalization on November 27, 2013. She stated that Father participated in 

therapy earlier in 2013 due to restraining order issues. Mother denied knowing 
11

anything about the basis for the restraining orders and said she is not aware that 

Father has disputes with neighbors. 

 With respect to the firearms found in the home, Mother stated that they were 

kept in the safe and in locked storage cabinets in the garage. She purchased the 

safe when Reece was born. Reece was aware the guns were there and knew that 

one of them was his grandfather’s antique gun. Father had grown up around guns 

and the family anticipated that when Reece was older he would go hunting with his 

extended family. Due to the restraining orders against Father that prohibited him 

from having access to firearms, Mother had changed the combination to the lock 

on the safe and kept the keys to the storage cabinets inside the safe. She stated that 

she had purchased four guns in 2013. Mother was not a hunter but Father and 

Reece had a “wish list” of hunting guns, and Mother had recently refinanced the 

home and wanted to buy the guns as an investment and before changes were made 

to the gun purchasing laws. 

 Mother did not know where Father was staying after being released from the 

hospital. She gave him money for housing and everything else. Initially he was 

staying in a hotel, but she could not afford to keep paying for it. He had been 

using his gas card to buy food. She denied any substance abuse by Father and 

stated that although he had taken painkillers for a while after a shoulder 

replacement five years earlier, he had stopped taking them. She said he did not 

currently drink alcohol because he was training for a marathon. 

 Mother reported that Reece was feeling guilty for not being home with 

Father when the incident took place, and he was having nightmares, nosebleeds, 

and stomach aches. Mother reported that Father and Reece visited together 

approximately three times a week, usually at restaurants with Mother acting as the 

monitor, and that the two were happy to see each other during visits. 
12

 On January 28, 2014, Mother told the caseworker that the situation with 

Father had gotten worse and that his recent behavior was “freaking [her] out.” She 

stated that the previous week, Father had a visit with Reece and Mother at a 

restaurant. He immediately asked what Mother had said to the dependency 

investigator. Mother replied that they were not supposed to talk about the case, but 

Father kept asking her and became aggressive with his questioning. He also asked 

Reece what the social workers asked him until Mother interceded. Father’s 

demeanor was odd, and Reece looked uncomfortable. Mother took Reece to the 

lobby area and asked if he wanted to leave, but Reece said he wanted to stay. 

 When they returned, Father asked Reece to sit next to him. Mother noted 

that Reece did not eat much, and he said he had a stomach ache. Father told 

Reece, “Your mom is the devil.” According to Mother, Father often called her 

“the devil” because she was adopted. Reece later told her he had heard Father call 

her that many times before. Although Mother had never questioned Father’s 

behavior before, recently she had begun to realize that his behavior was odd. For 

instance, Father never accompanied her and Reece to dinners with friends. He had 

no friends of his own and had cut family members out of his life for no reason. 

 Mother stated that she had talked to her attorney about getting a protective 

order because Father’s behavior was making her feel unsafe and he had threatened 

her by stating, “I’m not accountable for my actions.” Mother said she had changed 

all the locks at home. 

 Mother reported that Father’s brother had sent a nice email to Father and 

Father replied that “the system has f----- me. It’s all bogus.” Father had also 

written to his own mother asking her if she would get the guns back and hold them 

for him, and the grandmother had replied that she would. This concerned Mother 

because she believed Father would just take the guns from his mother. Mother 
13

stated she wanted to sell the guns so she could get some of her money back, with 

the exception of one gun that she would like to give to Reece when he turns 21 and 

another gun that had been passed down for generations on Father’s side of the 

family. 

 Mother also stated that Father has a gambling problem and that she believed 

Father was gambling the money she gave him for living expenses. He was 

constantly asking for more money, including calling her at 3:00 a.m. to ask for 

more money to pay for prescription medication (ostensibly for one of several 

medical problems Father was experiencing at the time). She believed he was 

living out of his car. 

 On January 31, 2014, Mother reported that Father had been calling her 

repeatedly and was yelling and being aggressive, to the point that she finally 

unplugged the phones in the home. He wanted his money for the month, and she 

had decided to give it to him to keep him at bay. Mother was crying while talking 

to the investigator and said she feared for Reece’s and her safety. On February 3, 

2014, Mother reported that she had given Father $1,000 and that the phone calls 

had subsided. She told the caseworker she was planning to seek a restraining order 

against Father. The caseworker notified Mother that she was no longer permitted 

to monitor visits because of the situation with Father. 

 Several days later, Mother reported that Father had been arrested on 

February 4, 2014, after he parked his car near their home and called Mother and 

asked her to bring him some money. She brought him $20 and then some 

undercover officers appeared and arrested him. According to the police, a 

neighbor had contacted the LAPD after seeing Father in the neighborhood, and he 

was arrested on an outstanding felony warrant. Father called Mother and asked her 

to post bail, but she refused to do so because the bail bond was too expensive. 
14

 On March 19, 2014, Mother related that Reece had quit his baseball team. 

At Reece’s last game, Father had been watching from across the field, and Mother 

believed Reece saw him and felt some pressure due to his presence. However, 

Mother stated that she and Reece had bumped into Father at Target two weeks 

earlier and had a nice visit, and that she had also taken Reece to meet Father for 

dinner on March 17, 2014, and they again had a good visit. She stated she was not 

feeling scared of Father at that time. 

d. Reports on Visitation and Father’s Participation in Counseling 

 On February 3, 2014, the caseworker left Father a voicemail stating that 

going forward the she would be monitoring visits with Reece, and that Father 

should call her to arrange a visitation schedule. However, as of the date of the 

jurisdictional and disposition hearing on April 21, 2014, DCFS had not monitored 

any visits between Father and Reece despite numerous efforts to arrange them with 

Father. Further, although Father asserted that he had been participating in 

parenting classes and counseling, Father had refused to provide any evidence of his 

participation in such services. 

e. Witness Testimony at Jurisdiction and Disposition Hearing 

 One of Father’s neighbors, Jack Singman, testified that on the evening 

before Thanksgiving in 2013, he heard what sounded like three loud gunshots, and 

police were called to the neighborhood. When asked if he recalled statements he 

made to the police that Father does “strange things,” like accuse neighbors of 

selling drugs, he testified that approximately six or seven years earlier Father had 

told him he had concerns about his next door neighbor. He also testified that 
15

sometimes Father played music for extended periods of time when there did not 

seem to be anyone home. 

 Another neighbor, Brian Shahbaghlian, testified that he lives across the 

street from Father. He testified that on the day before Thanksgiving, he was 

watching a movie, when he heard three popping noises over the noise of the loud 

action movie. Shortly thereafter, he heard helicopters circling in the area, and then 

heard voices on his front porch. He looked out and saw tactical officers with rifles 

pointed across the street. 

 He testified that a few months before this incident, his wife had seen Father 

using binoculars from his front porch, looking across the street in the direction of 

their home. He also testified that the previous owners had disclosed that they had a 

restraining order against Father. 

C. Court Findings at Jurisdiction and Disposition Hearing 

 The dependency court noted that allegation (b)(1) in the dependency petition 

erroneously stated that Father had been involuntarily hospitalized in 2009, but the 

court found that the allegation that Father had mental and emotional problems that 

could endanger Reece otherwise was supported by evidence that Father was 

paranoid and unstable, that he was defiant, and that he refused to work with the 

social worker. With respect to allegation (b)(2) -- that Reece was in a dangerous 

home environment -- the trial court concluded that the allegation should be 

sustained because (1) Father kept a large arsenal of weapons at the home despite 

his probation condition prohibiting such possession; (2) Father had fired shots at 

the home in November 2013; (3) Mother’s conduct in hiding the key to the safe 

from Father demonstrated her fear that Father would use the guns; (4) Father’s 

mental instability was an additional risk factor when coupled with the access to 
16

weapons; and (5) Father had been acting aggressively towards Mother, 

demonstrating a risk of further aggression that extended to Reece. The court thus 

sustained jurisdiction over Reece. The court further stated that the removal order 

was based on the same factual findings regarding Father’s mental and emotional 

instability, the loaded firearms, and his willingness to use them. 

DISCUSSION 

 Father contends that the juvenile court erred in finding that Reece is a person 

described by section 300, subdivision (b). “On appeal from an order making 

jurisdictional findings, we must uphold the court’s findings 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 determine there is no 

substantial evidence to support the findings. [Citation.] Substantial evidence is 

evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value.” (In re Veronica G.

(2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 179, 185.) Any inferences we draw must be reasonable 

and logical; “‘inferences that are the result of mere speculation or conjecture 

cannot support a finding [citations].’ [Citation.]” (In re Savannah M. (2005) 131 

Cal.App.4th 1387, 1393-1394.) 

 In order for a court to find that a child is one who is described by section 

300, subdivision (b), DCFS must establish that “[t]he 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 willful or negligent 

failure of the parent or guardian to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, 
17

shelter, or medical treatment, 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.” (§ 300, subd. (b).) 

 There is no evidence in the record that Reece has suffered any serious 

physical harm or illness. In the absence of any evidence of past harm suffered by 

Reece, we examine whether DCFS has shown by a preponderance of the evidence 

that there is a “substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm or 

illness.” (§ 300, subd. (b).) Our focus is whether DCFS has proffered substantial 

evidence that “at the time of the jurisdictional hearing the child is at substantial 

risk of serious physical harm in the future.” (In re Savannah M., supra, 131 

Cal.App.4th at p. 1396.) The purpose of section 300 “‘is to provide maximum 

safety and protection for children who are currently being physically, sexually, or 

emotionally abused, being neglected, or being exploited, and to ensure the safety, 

protection, and physical and emotional well-being of children who are at risk of 

that harm.’ (§ 300.2, italics added.) ‘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.’ [Citation.]” (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773.) We 

conclude that the trial court properly sustained jurisdiction under subdivision (b) of 

section 300 because DCFS presented substantial evidence that Reece was at 

substantial risk of serious physical harm due to Father’s mental and emotional 

instability and paranoia and the fact that he had amassed a large cache of weapons 

and demonstrated a willingness to use them. 

 Although Father contends there was no evidence that he had a mental 

disorder, expert evidence of “mental illness” is not required in order to assert 

jurisdiction under section 300. (In re Khalid H. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 733, 735-
18

736.) Rather, the trial court properly relied upon other evidence in the record 

demonstrating that Father had mental health issues.3

 

 For instance, according to Mother, Father was antisocial and spent time 

watching the cameras on the 16-camera surveillance system at the home. He 

claimed that he himself was under constant surveillance, and he also claimed to be 

working with the FBI against the “Cartel.” Father was a party to over 100 crime 

reports involving neighbors, and three neighbors currently had restraining orders 

against him. He was on probation for the recent violation of one of those 

restraining orders. As a condition of his probation, Father was prohibited from 

possessing firearms, and such possession would constitute a felony. Nevertheless, 

a large arsenal of weapons (included one loaded gun) and related paraphernalia 

was found at Father’s home, and there was sufficient evidence from which the trial 

court reasonably could conclude that Father used one of those guns to fire shots at 

the family’s home. It is also undisputed that afterwards Father barricaded himself 

 

3

 Father contends that the allegation in count (b)(1) of the dependency petition that 

he suffered from serious emotional and mental issues was improperly sustained because it 

included the erroneous factual allegation that he attempted suicide in 2009. Indeed, after 

the dependency petition was filed, DCFS reported to the court that the police had 

corrected earlier information it provided that Father had attempted suicide in 2009. In 

sustaining count (b)(1), the dependency court did not strike the language regarding the 

suicide attempt, but stated as follows: “[T]he involuntary hospitalization is not the only 

piece of evidence that the court relies on. And the court is willing to accept that the 

police said that it was based on an incorrect name.” The court then found that other 

evidence of Father’s paranoia, instability and fear, as well as his defiance and refusal to 

work with the DCFS caseworker, were sufficient to sustain the allegation that Father had 

mental and emotional issues. Thus, the inaccuracy in the petition with respect to a 2009 

suicide attempt does not warrant reversal of the jurisdictional orders in this case. (See In 

re Athena P. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 617, 626–628 [So long as sufficient notice was 

provided to the parent and substantial evidence supports jurisdiction, deficiencies in the 

allegations of a petition are harmless error]; see also In re N.M. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 

159, 166.)
19

in his home and a lengthy standoff with law enforcement ensued before he would 

exit the home. Immediately following this incident, Father was involuntarily 

hospitalized for seven days.4

 No evidence in the record demonstrates that any 

physician deemed his hospitalization to have been unwarranted, or deemed him to 

be mentally stable. 

 After his release from the hospital, Father continued to show signs of serious 

mental instability. Mother believed he was gambling away the money she gave 

him for living expenses and was living in his car. He demonstrated paranoid fears 

about law enforcement’s collusion with DCFS. He exhibited odd behavior at a 

visit with Reece and Mother, telling Reece that Mother was “the devil,” and calling 

Mother at all hours of the night to ask for more money and yell at her. Moreover, 

there is no evidence to suggest that Father was taking any steps to address concerns 

concerning his mental and emotional health, with the exception of his 

unsubstantiated statements that he was participating in counseling. Father instead 

consistently refused to cooperate with DCFS or to release information about his 

participation in counseling or parenting classes. Based on the foregoing, the trial 

court did not err in concluding that Father had serious mental and emotional issues. 

 

4

 Father contends that the sole reason he was involuntarily hospitalized in 

November 2013 was because the police were operating under the erroneous belief that he 

already had a history of involuntary hospitalization as a result of a purported suicide 

attempt in 2009. However, the record does not support his assertion. Rather, the 

evidence demonstrates that after Father was detained for firing multiple gun shots at his 

home and then barricading himself in his home for a lengthy period, he was evaluated by 

the LAPD Mental Evaluation Unit, which made the decision to place him on a 72-hour 

hold for mental evaluation for being a danger to himself and/or others. Thus, the 

misunderstanding of another police officer with respect to Father’s previous mental 

health history cannot be blamed for Father’s involuntary hospitalization in November 

2013.
20

 Father further argues that even assuming that he had mental problems, there 

was insufficient evidence that Reece was at substantial risk of suffering serious 

harm as a result. We disagree. 

 Father is correct that DCFS has the burden to show “evidence of a specific, 

defined risk of harm to [Reece] resulting from . . . [F]ather’s mental illness . . . .” 

(In re David M. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 822, 830; see also In re Matthew S. (1996) 

41 Cal.App.4th 1311, 1318 [holding that “harm may not be presumed from the 

mere fact of mental illness of a parent”]. Father relies on In re James R. (2009) 

176 Cal.App.4th 129, 136 (James R.), in which the appellate court found that the 

trial court should not have sustained jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b), 

where the minors came to the attention of DCFS after the mother had a negative 

reaction to taking ibuprofen and drinking beer. The investigation revealed that the 

mother had a previous history of mental health problems and presently used 

alcohol. DCFS argued that the minors faced a risk of harm because it was not 

known if the mother was emotionally stable, and it was possible that if she did not 

follow through with treatment she could be a danger to herself, which would 

negatively impact the children. The appellate court concluded that DCFS’s 

concerns were based on mere speculation and thus were insufficient bases for 

concluding that the children were at risk of future harm. (Id. at pp. 136-137.) 

 Father contends that as in James R., in this case DCFS failed to show 

specifically how his mental illness would create a substantial risk of serious harm 

to Reece in the future. James R. is distinguishable, however, in part because the 

mother in that case had never exhibited any violent tendencies and did not maintain 

a weapons cache like Father did. Father’s criminal history included violent crimes, 

including assaulting a police officer with a deadly weapon. The record further 

suggests that Father was becoming increasingly aggressive and unstable and was in 
21

active disputes with neighbors that appeared to be escalating, despite the 

restraining orders in place against him. His arsenal of weapons appeared to be 

growing and he demonstrated a willingness to use the weapons. 

 Although Father argues that Reece was not at future risk from guns in the 

home because law enforcement had confiscated them, Mother reported that Father 

had asked his mother to get his guns back, and despite the fact that he could not 

possess guns lawfully, Mother feared he would be successful in getting access to 

guns again. Moreover, although there is no evidence that Reece generally had 

access to the weapons, which were kept in a locked safe, Father obviously had 

been handling the weapons outside the safe, as he discharged one of them, albeit 

while Reece was not at home. Given Father’s demonstrated mental instability, and 

the absence of evidence that he was working to address the issue, it was not 

unreasonable to conclude that the likely proximity of firearms would put Reece at 

risk of harm. (See In re Gabriel K. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 188, 197 [“One cannot 

correct a problem one fails to acknowledge.”].) 

 In addition, following his release from his involuntary hospitalization stay, 

Father exhibited aggressive and threatening behavior towards Mother, leading her 

to fear for her and Reece’s safety to the point that she had all the locks changed at 

home and was considering getting a restraining order against him. This threatening 

behavior permits a reasonable inference that Reece was directly at risk of harm 

from Father as well. 

 In sum, we conclude that substantial evidence establishes that Reece was at 

substantial risk of serious physical harm, and we affirm the trial court’s exercise of 

dependency jurisdiction. 

 Father argues that the dispositional orders must be reversed because 

dependency jurisdiction was not warranted. Because we find that the court 
22

properly asserted dependency jurisdiction over Reece, and Father raises no other 

challenge to the dispositional orders, we likewise affirm the dispositional orders. 

DISPOSITION 

 The jurisdictional and dispositional orders are affirmed. 

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 

 WILLHITE, J. 

 We concur: 

 EPSTEIN, P. J. 

 COLLINS, J.