Filed 1/9/14 In re Joseph B. CA4/1 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 

DIVISION ONE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

In re JOSEPH B., a Person Coming Under 

the Juvenile Court Law. 

SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

ANGELO B. et al., 

 Defendants and Appellants. 

 D064328 

 (Super. Ct. No. CJ1118) 

 APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Laura J. 

Birkmeyer, Judge. Affirmed. 

 Jamie A. Moran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant Angelo B. 

 Rosemary Bishop, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant Jamie M. 
2 

 Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, John E. Philips, Chief Deputy County 

Counsel, and Lisa M. Maldonado, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

INTRODUCTION 

 Angelo B. and Jamie M., the parents of Joseph B., appeal the juvenile court's 

jurisdiction and disposition order under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, 

subdivision (b).1 Jamie and Joseph became homeless after they left Angelo following a 

fight between Jamie and Angelo. Joseph was detained in protective custody after Jamie 

checked herself in to a mental health facility reporting that she had thoughts of harming 

Joseph. The court determined removal was necessary and it would be detrimental to 

place Joseph with either parent based upon evidence of mental health issues, substance 

abuse, and domestic violence. Angelo challenges the jurisdictional finding that he had 

been unable to protect and supervise Joseph and further challenges the dispositional 

finding in which the court declined to place Joseph with Angelo. Jamie contends there is 

no substantial evidence to support the court's finding that it would be detrimental to 

return Joseph to her care, claiming her mental health has stabilized. We affirm the 

judgment. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

I. 

Detention 

 

1 All further references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise 

indicated. An order under section 300 is an appealable judgment. (§ 395, subd. (a).) 
3 

 In January 2013, when Joseph was 11 months old, Jamie, checked herself into a 

mental health facility reporting she had thoughts of hurting Joseph. Jamie has a history 

of mental illness including a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder and bipolar 

disorder requiring medication, which she had not been taking for several months. 

 Joseph came to the attention of the San Diego County Health and Human Services 

Agency (Agency) after the Agency's child abuse hotline received a report that Jamie and 

Joseph had recently moved to San Diego, perhaps to get away from the baby's father. 

The report indicated that friends watched Joseph because they were scared of what Jamie 

would do. Jamie had dropped Joseph off in a carrier at a childcare parking lot. She had 

also been kicked out of her mother's home and they had stayed in several places where 

drugs were used. The referral stated that Jamie could not cope with the baby and had 

thoughts of wanting to physically harm him. 

 Jamie reported to the investigating social worker that her relationship with 

Joseph's father, Angelo, was very abusive. Angelo would come home high on 

methamphetamine or alcohol and would hit her and force her to have sex with him. She 

reported that Angelo beat her up in front of her older daughter.2

 Jamie and Joseph lived in Nevada with Angelo until June of 2012 when Jamie was 

escorted from the property by the sheriff following an incident of domestic violence, 

which Jamie said occurred because she would not allow Angelo to have sex with her. 

 

2 Jamie has an older daughter from another marriage who lives with her father. 

Jamie had unsupervised visits with that child until the girl's father reported Jamie was 

"losing it" during visits. The judge in that case ordered Jamie to continue with her 

medication, maintain sobriety and to not allow Angelo around her daughter during visits. 
4 

After this incident, she and Joseph ended up living out of her car. Jamie felt 

overwhelmed and had not taken her medications since October 2012 because she was not 

able to provide an address for Medicaid benefits. Jamie admitted to a history of 

substance abuse, including use of methamphetamine within recent months. 

 When Jamie's cousin learned that Jamie and Joseph were homeless, she invited 

them to stay with her. Jamie arrived in California at the end of December 2012, but had 

left Joseph in the care of a friend until she could stabilize her mental health. The cousin 

drove to Las Vegas, Nevada, to get the child. The cousin reported she was concerned 

that Jamie would go back to Nevada and resume a relationship with Angelo. 

 Joseph was detained in protective custody due to Jamie's unstable mental health 

and because there was concern she would flee with Joseph to resume a violent and 

dysfunctional relationship with Angelo.3

 Jamie reported having a hard time connecting with the child and feeling a lot of 

resentment towards him. She saw him as a reminder of a bad relationship and the 

product of someone who abused and raped her for years. However, she also reported that 

she loved Joseph, he was her hope, and she felt that she would not have a purpose to live 

without him. 

 The social worker confirmed domestic violence episodes with Angelo. In 

September 2010, both Jamie and Angelo were arrested for domestic battery on each 

 

3 Angelo testified that he called child protective services in Nevada around the time 

Joseph was taken to San Diego. There is no indication in the record that Nevada took any 

action on this report. 
5 

other. Angelo stated he obtained a temporary restraining order against Jamie. In March 

2011, Angelo's brother called sheriff deputies reporting Angelo forcibly entered a home 

and began fighting the residents. Earlier, Angelo had fought with his brother, grabbed his 

neck and tried to strangle him, but Ryan, one of the residents, intervened. Ryan also 

intervened in a fight between Jamie and another woman, putting Jamie in a chokehold. 

Angelo confronted Ryan about the incident and fought with him. The brother reported 

that every time Angelo drinks alcoholic beverages, he gets very violent. 

 The Agency filed a petition under section 300, subdivision (b). The detention 

report recommended Joseph be detained because there was substantial danger to the 

physical and emotional health of the child and there was no reasonable means by which 

he could be protected without removing him from the parents' or guardians' physical 

custody. There was substantial evidence that Jamie was likely to flee the jurisdiction of 

the court because Jamie wanted to return to Nevada to obtain housing. Jamie had 

unresolved mental health issues and had been both a victim and perpetrator in domestic 

violence. 

II. 

Detention Hearing

 Since the child had lived out of state within the prior six months, the court 

exercised emergency jurisdiction over the child at the detention hearing and indicated it 

would make an inquiry under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement 

Act (UCCJEA) (Fam. Code, § 3400 et seq.). 
6 

 At the January 24, 2011 hearing, the court found the Agency made a prima facie 

showing that Joseph was a child described by section 300, subdivision (b), and that initial 

removal was necessary.4 Detention was necessary because of a substantial danger to the 

physical health of the child and there was no reasonable means to protect his physical or 

emotional health without removing him from parental custody. The court ordered the 

Agency to evaluate Jamie's cousin's home for placement. If Joseph was to be placed with 

the cousin, the court gave the social worker discretion to allow Jamie to reside in the 

home, but in a supervised setting, and only if Jamie was actively engaged in services. 

III. 

Jurisdictional Hearings

 In February 2013, Jamie supported placement with her cousin and "vehemently 

expressed that she would not want [Angelo] to be considered for a possible placement 

option." Angelo, however, wanted Joseph placed with him and stated he could provide 

his son with a stable and nurturing home. The Agency's jurisdiction/disposition report 

 

4 Section 300 provides in pertinent part: "Any child who comes within any of the 

following descriptions is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court which may adjudge 

that person to be a dependent child of the court: [¶] . . . [¶] (b) The child has suffered, or 

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

result of the failure or inability of his or her parent or guardian to adequately supervise or 

protect the child, or the willful or negligent failure of the child's parent or guardian to 

adequately supervise or protect the child from the conduct of the custodian with whom 

the child has been left, or by the willful or negligent failure of the parent or guardian to 

provide the child with adequate food, clothing, 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. . . . The child 

shall continue to be a dependent child pursuant to this subdivision only so long as is 

necessary to protect the child from risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness." 
7 

informed the court Joseph had not yet been placed with Jamie's cousin because Jamie was 

living in the home and she was not actively engaged in services. 

 At the February 14, 2013 hearing, Angelo appeared through appointed counsel and 

entered a denial to the petition. The court ordered the Agency to provide voluntary 

services to Angelo and allowed telephonic or Skype visitation. The court indicated it 

would make the appropriate inquiry with Nevada regarding the UCCJEA and would set a 

special hearing regarding this issue. After discovering that no proceedings had been filed 

in Nevada regarding this child, the court proceeded with jurisdiction.5

 Jamie later moved out of the cousin's home to accommodate Joseph's placement 

with the cousin. He did well and Jamie had liberal supervised visits. 

 In March 2013, the court found the allegations in the petition true and sustained 

the jurisdictional allegations under section 300, subdivision (b). The court noted that 

disposition was contested by both parents. The Agency recommended that Joseph remain 

placed with the cousin and that Jamie receive reunification services, but live out of the 

 

5 At a special hearing, the court informed the parties that it had contacted the 

chambers of the presiding judge for Clark County, Nevada and learned there were no 

family or juvenile cases regarding Joseph. The Nevada court provided information about 

a case regarding Jamie's daughter from a previous relationship. An order was entered 

precluding Jamie from having any contact with Angelo during her visits with her 

daughter. The order required Jamie to continue treatment with her psychiatrist, to stay on 

her medications and to stay clean and not use any illegal drugs. The California juvenile 

court in this case interpreted the UCCJEA as requiring it to confirm that there are no 

pending cases regarding the child in the home state jurisdiction and that if, after that 

inquiry is made, the other court does not assert jurisdiction and no parent or other 

individual files an action in the other state, then the California court may proceed. The 

court indicated that if one of the parents filed a proceeding in another state, then the 

UCCJEA inquiry would be raised again. No party objected. 
8 

home. Jamie asked that she be allowed to move into the home with Joseph or that the 

child be placed with the cousin. Because Angelo requested custody, the Agency 

requested an expedited evaluation of Angelo's home pursuant to the Interstate Compact 

on the Placement of Children (ICPC). (Fam. Code, § 7901 et seq.). 

IV. 

Contested Disposition Hearings6

A. 

 While Jamie participated in services for several months, Jamie sent a number of 

concerning text messages in April 2013 indicating she intended to kill herself. In May, 

she moved back to Las Vegas, Nevada. She now hoped Joseph would be placed with 

Angelo. 

 In a May home interview, a Nevada social worker reported that Angelo initially 

stated he had been sober since 2010, but then admitted to drinking at least a "six-pack a 

week." The social worker also observed that he appeared anxious and exhibited 

symptoms similar to withdrawal symptoms, such as tics and sweating profusely. 

B.

 When the contested disposition hearing proceeded in June 2013, Angelo admitted 

he had three convictions for driving under the influence (DUI) in the 1990's, the third 

being a felony. In 2002 his probation was revoked after he tested positive for 

methamphetamine and he served 16 months in prison. 

 

6 The contested disposition hearing was continued several times to obtain an ICPC 

report from Nevada of Angelo's home. 
9 

 He claimed he went to a voluntary treatment program for 28 days when he worked 

for a commercial airline in Texas. He also said he participated in Alcoholics Anonymous 

(AA) meetings, but he stopped attending AA meetings in 2005 claiming he had not had 

anything to drink for eight years. 

 He was convicted of a misdemeanor DUI in Las Vegas in 2009. He claimed he 

had his grandmother's prescription pain medicine when he was pulled over. However, he 

obtained the DUI after he tested positive for marijuana. He was placed on a three-year 

probation, which again required classes. 

 Angelo admitted he told the Nevada social worker that he drinks "a six-pack a 

week." He testified, however, that he only drinks three or four drinks when he goes to 

karaoke. He denies drinking and driving and denies that he drinks when the children are 

around. During the same interview in Nevada, Angelo reported for the first time that he 

had been treated for bipolar disorder and last took medication for that condition in 2004. 

 Angelo was arrested for domestic violence with Jamie in 2010 in which they both 

claimed to be the victim. Angelo was also arrested following the altercation with his 

brother in March 2011. He pleaded to a lesser charge and paid a fine. 

 Angelo asked the court to place Joseph with him arguing that he did not do 

anything wrong to have Joseph kept from him. He believed he was in the best position to 

take care of Joseph and he has a support system. If given custody of Joseph, he could 

bring Joseph to work with him at his mother's real estate office, where other relatives 

would care for him or he would put Joseph in daycare. 
10 

 Angelo testified that if Joseph was placed in his care, he would be willing to 

refrain from the use of alcohol or controlled substances, participate in AA or Narcotics 

Anonymous (NA) meetings and participate in random drug testing. 

 Angelo was aware that Jamie moved back to Nevada and he had no problem with 

Jamie having visits. Angelo testified he speaks to Jamie all the time by phone or by text. 

He socialized with her since she returned to Nevada. She has a job and he helped her out 

with a place to stay. 

 Angelo planned to go to Texas during the summer to stay with his ex-wife and 

Joseph's half-brother and two half-sisters while the kids were out of school. He also 

wanted to assist his daughter, who has cerebral palsy, after a scheduled surgery. He 

denied that there would be any domestic violence issues between him and his ex-wife. 

 The court found it would be detrimental to place Joseph with Jamie. While Jamie 

did actively participate in voluntary services, the court was concerned that she moved 

back to Las Vegas and removed herself from services and assistance. The court was also 

concerned about the suicide threats, which suggested Jamie was not able to provide stable 

and protective care for her child. 

 The court also found it would be detrimental to place Joseph with Angelo at the 

time, but requested additional information to consider Angelo's placement request. The 

court based its finding on Angelo's significant substance abuse history including a series 

of DUI's that the court described as "very troubling and clearly escalating." 

 The court also found detriment based upon Angelo's history of domestic violence 

with Jamie, including an incident of violence in the presence of a child. The court stated, 
11 

"What is particularly concerning to the court is what I assessed, after having watched 

father on the stand, is his lack of insight of his role in terms of the domestic violence. 

The reports before the court are quite clear. Father blanketly denies—and I have 

concerns about his credibility at this point—that he was ever physical with mother, that 

he hit mother, although, she had very significant bruising, and reported on more than one 

occasion that father had been violent towards her. [¶] Father's assessment of this was 

that he was, essentially, the victim at all times, and would, essentially, allow her back in 

. . . his life. The reason I find this troubling as to the question of placement today of 

Joseph with the father is that nothing has been addressed with respect to father's view of 

domestic violence. [¶] And while he gave the court some explanations . . . generally 

how domestic violence can impact a child, he does not seem to have an awareness about 

protecting himself and his role in terms of protecting Joseph. [¶] Moreover, the court 

also has concerns about the father's ability to accurately assess mother's situation. And 

even when he thinks that she is in a mental health crisis, he continues to engage with 

her." 

 The court was also concerned that Jamie and Angelo were now living in proximity 

to each other again and were communicating. The court concluded it had real concerns, 

"based on the record before me today, that there is not a protective system in place such 

that Joseph could be put with father, can be protected from domestic violence, verbal and 

otherwise between the parents." 

 The court ordered Angelo be drug tested, he enroll in a domestic violence 

program, and his case plan include a full substance abuse assessment. The court also 
12 

wanted additional information about services available to Jamie and what services might 

be available to Angelo in Texas if he went there for an extended visit. The court 

continued the disposition hearing for this additional information. 

C. 

 Prior to the next hearing, Jamie submitted information indicating she was 

accessing services in Nevada, she was no longer homeless, and she had a weekly income. 

The social worker noted that, based on recent telephone conversations, Jamie's mental 

health appeared to be stabilized. She was more lucid and routinely expressed interest in 

Joseph's well being. The social worker, however, wanted to speak with Jamie's 

psychiatrist before recommending unsupervised visits. 

 Angelo completed a chemical dependency assessment in Texas, which indicated 

he meets the criteria for dependence, but that he is in sustained remission. He also 

submitted to random drug testing, which was negative. Angelo was enrolled in, but had 

not yet started, a domestic violence program in Texas. The Nevada report made the 

home study contingent on completion of a drug and alcohol evaluation, a mental health 

evaluation and proof of employment. 

D. 

 At the continued hearing on July 23, 2013, Angelo was living in Texas with his 

ex-wife and their children. He was getting paid by Texas to act as a caregiver for his 

special needs daughter. While he and his ex-wife were discussing getting back together, 

there were no immediate plans for reunification. 
13 

 Jamie now opposed placement with Angelo because he was not living in Nevada 

and she was concerned that Angelo needed to obtain the services recommended by the 

Agency. She also requested reunification services with Joseph. 

 The court denied Angelo's request for reconsideration of the detriment finding. 

While the court commended Angelo for the steps he had taken, the court indicated that 

the same concerns existed as they did at the contested jurisdiction hearing and the court 

wanted a completed ICPC evaluation. The court also wanted confirmation of attendance 

at AA or NA meetings, as well as alcohol and drug testing and reports regarding his 

domestic violence treatment. 

 The court granted Angelo an extended visit with Joseph so that he could spend 

vacation time with his half-siblings and could visit relatives, including his mother in Las 

Vegas. The court ordered that Joseph's visit with his mother be supervised by someone 

other than Angelo. 

 The court reiterated its findings for removing Joseph from Jamie and making a 

detriment finding as to Angelo. The court ordered the Agency to prepare a case plan for 

Angelo and an ICPC for Jamie. 

DISCUSSION 

I. 

Substantial Evidence Supports the Jurisdictional Finding 

A. 

 "A dependency proceeding under section 300 is essentially a bifurcated 

proceeding. The court first determines whether the minor is a dependent child subject to 
14 

the jurisdiction of the court within the description set out in section 300. . . . [¶] Once 

the court has determined the minor is a person described by section 300 and has assumed 

jurisdiction it 'shall then proceed to hear evidence on the question of the proper 

disposition to be made of the minor . . . .' (§ 356.) . . . Before a dispositional order which 

awards custody to a nonparent without the consent of the parents can be rendered, there 

must be a clear and convincing showing an award to the parents would be detrimental to 

the child and that an award of custody to a nonparent is essential to avert harm to the 

child and required to serve the best interests of the child." (In re Jamie M. (1982) 134 

Cal.App.3d 530, 535, italics omitted.) 

 At the jurisdiction phase, under section 355, subdivision (a), the Agency is 

required to " 'prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the child who is the subject 

of a petition comes under the juvenile court's jurisdiction.' " (In re Brison C. (2000) 81 

Cal.App.4th 1373, 1379.) "The basic question under section 300 is whether 

circumstances at the time of the hearing subject the minor to the defined risk of harm." 

(In re Nicholas B. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1126, 1134.) For the court to exercise 

jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b), there must be "evidence indicating that 

the child is exposed to a substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness." (In re 

Rocco M. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 814, 823.) 

 "On appeal, the 'substantial evidence' test is the appropriate standard of review for 

both the jurisdictional and dispositional findings. [Citations.] The term 'substantial 

evidence' means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to 

support a conclusion; it is evidence which is reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid 
15 

value." (In re J.K. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1433.) "It is the trial court's role to 

assess the credibility of the various witnesses, to weigh the evidence to resolve the 

conflicts in the evidence. We have no power to judge the effect or value of the evidence, 

to weigh the evidence, to consider the credibility of witnesses or to resolve conflicts in 

the evidence or the reasonable inferences which may be drawn from that evidence. 

[Citations.] Under the substantial evidence rule, we must accept the evidence most 

favorable to the order as true and discard the unfavorable evidence as not having 

sufficient verity to be accepted by the trier of fact." (In re Casey D. (1999) 70 

Cal.App.4th 38, 52-53.) 

B. 

 Angelo argues on appeal that there was no substantial evidence to support the 

jurisdictional finding that he was unable to protect and supervise Joseph. Angelo did not 

raise this argument before the juvenile court. Instead, at the jurisdiction hearing, his 

counsel merely requested that the petition be amended to strike the word "failed" from 

the petition, arguing that he did make a report once he learned Joseph had been taken 

from Nevada. The court amended the petition as requested leaving the allegations that 

Angelo had been unable to protect and supervise Joseph. The court sustained the petition 

and made a true finding of jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b). Angelo's 

acquiescence waived his right to claim error as a basis for reversal on appeal. (In re N.M. 

(2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 159, 166 ["It is well settled that attacks on the legal sufficiency 

of a petition cannot be made for the first time on appeal"]; see also In re Marriage of 

Hinman (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 988, 1002 [" 'An appellate court will ordinarily not 
16 

consider procedural defects or erroneous rulings . . . where an objection could have been, 

but was not, presented to the lower court by some appropriate method. [Citations.]' 

[Citation.] Failure to object to the ruling or proceeding is the most obvious type of 

implied waiver"].) 

 Even if Angelo did not forfeit the right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence 

regarding jurisdiction, he cannot prevail on such a claim. The purpose of dependency 

proceedings is to protect children, not to punish the parents. "Therefore, the court takes 

jurisdiction over children (§ 300); it does not take jurisdiction over parents. Moreover, 

the court has jurisdiction over the children if the actions of either parent bring the child 

within one of the statutory definitions in section 300. [Citation.] The court gains 

jurisdiction over a parent when the parent is properly noticed. [Citation.]" (In re Joshua 

G. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 189, 202, italics added.) 

 In this case, Angelo does not dispute that the Agency properly sought detention of 

Joseph when Jamie was in a state of distress. At the time of the jurisdictional hearing, the 

court had information regarding Jamie's unresolved mental health issues as well as her 

history of substance abuse and domestic violence charges. This alone was sufficient for 

the court to take jurisdiction over the child. 

 In addition, however, there was evidence that Angelo was unable to protect or 

supervise Joseph. Jamie's reports of domestic violence at the hands of Angelo were 

confirmed by police reports, and an order from another court prohibiting Angelo from 

having contact with Jamie during visits with her daughter. Additionally, the Agency 

expressed concern about placement with Angelo due to his criminal history. 
17 

 Angelo argues that he "took appropriate steps when mother left the state with 

Joseph" by filing a report with child welfare officials in Nevada in December and by 

"refus[ing] to continue his relationship with mother, due to her behavior." However, as 

the court pointed out, there is no indication that Angelo intervened to care for or protect 

Joseph during the months that Jamie and Joseph were homeless in Nevada when they 

were bouncing from house to house. It also does not appear that Angelo came to see the 

child until March 2013, months after he was detained. 

 Based upon the record in this case, we conclude there was substantial evidence to 

support the court's jurisdictional finding. 

II. 

Substantial Evidence Supports the Court's Dispositional Finding 

A. 

 "After the juvenile court finds a child to be within its jurisdiction, the court must 

conduct a dispositional hearing. [Citation.] At the dispositional hearing, the court must 

decide where the child will live while under the court's supervision." (In re N.M., supra, 

197 Cal.App.4th at p. 169.) "A removal order is proper if based on proof of a parental 

inability to provide proper care for the child and proof of a potential detriment to the 

child if he or she remains with the parent. [Citation.] 'The parent need not be dangerous 

and the minor need not have been actually harmed before removal is appropriate. The 

focus of the statute is on averting harm to the child.' [Citation.] The court may consider 

a parent's past conduct as well as present circumstances." (Id. at pp. 169-170.) 
18 

 "Before the court issues a removal order, it must find the child's welfare requires 

removal because of a substantial danger, or risk of danger, to the child's physical health if 

he or she is returned home, and there are no reasonable alternatives to protect the child. 

[Citations.] There must be clear and convincing evidence that removal is the only way to 

protect the child." (In re N.M., supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 170.) 

 While the parents emphasize the requirement for the juvenile court to find "clear 

and convincing" evidence of detriment before ordering removal at a disposition hearing, 

this is not the standard applied on appeal. We again apply the substantial evidence rule to 

review the court's factual determination regarding disposition. As we have explained, 

" 'on appeal from a judgment required to be based upon clear and convincing evidence, 

"the clear and convincing test disappears . . . [and] the usual rule of conflicting evidence 

is applied, giving full effect to the respondent's evidence, however slight, and 

disregarding the appellant's evidence, however strong." [Citation.]' [Citation.] 'We have 

no power to judge the effect or value of the evidence, to weigh the evidence [or] to 

consider the credibility of witnesses . . . .' " (In re Mark L. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 573, 

580-581, fn. omitted.) 

 As with the jurisdiction finding, the evidence supports the disposition finding. 

The record shows that the court carefully considered the evidence and weighed the 

credibility of the witnesses in making its determination that it would be detrimental to 

place Joseph with either parent at the time. We agree with the juvenile court that it is 

commendable that both parents have accessed services and appear to be making strides to 
19 

improve their situations. However, at the time of the disposition hearings, the court had 

serious ongoing concerns about the ability of either parent to protect and care for Joseph. 

B. 

 Unlike in Blanca P. v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1738, 1751, where a 

therapist had only vague concerns about parenting insights, in this case Jamie has a 

documented mental illness that requires medication and treatment. While she did seek 

treatment, she left California without completing that treatment and her therapist 

expressed concern about her mental health and the ability for her to provide a safe 

residence for Joseph. This along with the fact that she sent a series of suicide notes 

before moving back to Nevada was substantial evidence to support the court's conclusion 

that Jamie was significantly unstable to provide stable and protective care for Joseph at 

the time. The fact that Jamie has since accessed care in Nevada and appears to have had 

some success in stabilizing her mental health is positive and may lead to reunification, 

but that issue is not before us. 

C. 

 With regard to Angelo, the court acknowledged that under section 361.2 it was 

required to consider placement with him as the noncustodial parent unless it found by 

clear and convincing evidence that placement with that parent would be "detrimental to 

the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child." (In re Marquis 

D. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1813, 1829.) The court made this finding and it is supported 

by substantial evidence. 
20 

 The record supports the court's concern about Angelo's long history of substance 

abuse, going back to his teens, and dependency upon multiple substances, which led to 

criminal behavior and interfered with his ability to maintain employment. The court had 

justifiable concerns that even after three DUI convictions, Angelo violated his probation 

by testing positive for methamphetamine. Then, after serving time in prison for the 

violation, he again tested positive for driving under the influence of marijuana. While 

Angelo claims he has been sober since 2010, he disclosed to a Nevada social worker that 

he still engages in social drinking every week while playing games or going to bars. 

 The Legislature recognizes that providing children with "a home environment free 

from the negative effects of substance abuse is a necessary condition for the safety, 

protection and physical and emotional well-being of the child." (§ 300.2.) It is for this 

reason that the court properly required Angelo to participate in a complete substance 

abuse assessment as well as drug and alcohol testing and documentation of his 

participation in AA and NA meetings. 

 The record also supports the court's finding based upon concerns about domestic 

violence. While Angelo suggested that the incidents of domestic violence with Jamie 

were due to her mental health issues and that he was the victim, the court did not find his 

testimony credible. Even if his testimony were to be believed, the court found it 

troubling that Angelo would continue to engage with Jamie, particularly while he is 

seeking placement of the child. In addition, there was evidence that Angelo's ex-wife left 

him after an incident where Angelo became physical and it scared her enough to call the 
21 

police. At the time of the continued disposition hearing in July 2013, Angelo had not yet 

started a domestic violence program. 

 Under these circumstances, the court properly found detriment to place with 

Angelo and ordered him to address both the domestic violence and substance abuse 

issues. 

DISPOSITION 

 The judgment is affirmed. 

MCCONNELL, P. J. 

WE CONCUR: 

MCDONALD, J. 

IRION, J.