Filed 3/16/21 In re L.G. CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions 

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

has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re L.G. et al., Persons Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 B305503

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 17CCJP02118A-C)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

SANDRA A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of

Los Angeles County. Kim L. Nguyen, Judge. Dismissed in part 

and affirmed in part.

Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
2

Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, Acting County Counsel, Kim 

Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Tracey Dodds, Principal 

Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________

Sandra A. (mother) challenges the juvenile court’s order 

made at the 12-month review hearing concerning her three 

children, L.G. (minor, born May 2009), David G., Jr. (David, born 

Sept. 2010), and J.G. (born Feb. 2013). (Welf. & Inst. Code, 

§ 366.21, subd. (f).)1 Specifically, she contends that insufficient 

evidence supports the juvenile court’s determination that 

returning minor to mother would create a substantial risk of 

detriment to minor. 

We dismiss that portion of mother’s appeal concerning 

David and J.G. as mother did not raise any arguments in her 

opening brief regarding those two children. We affirm the 

juvenile court’s order concerning minor.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Section 300 Petition

On November 29, 2017, the Los Angeles Department of 

Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a petition on behalf of 

the three children pursuant to section 300, alleging that the 

children needed the protection of the juvenile court because of 

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
3

domestic violence between mother and David G., Sr. (father).

2

DCFS had obtained a removal order that allowed it to detain the

children from father. 

Arraignment and Detention Hearing

The parties appeared for an arraignment and detention 

hearing on November 30, 2017. The juvenile court found 

continuance in father’s home was contrary to the children’s 

welfare, that substantial danger existed to the physical health of 

the children, and there were no reasonable means by which the 

children could be protected without removing the children from 

father’s custody. The juvenile court ordered that the children 

remain with mother on the condition that she not drive the 

children while under the influence of marijuana. It also ordered 

mother not to discuss the dependency case with the children.

Jurisdictional Disposition Hearing

On February 2, 2018, the juvenile court sustained the 

section 300 petition, declaring minor and her siblings to be 

dependents of the court, and placed them in mother’s home. 

DCFS was ordered to provide family maintenance services to 

mother. Mother was granted a permanent restraining order 

protecting her from father. 

Six-month review hearing

For the six-month review hearing, DCFS reported that 

mother had made a family plan for the two older children to 

reside with a relative while she kept the youngest child with her. 

Mother told the social worker that she kept in constant contact 

with the older children and had enrolled herself and the children 

2 Father is not a party to this appeal.
4

in counseling at their school. Mother’s counselor verified working 

with the family weekly. DCFS recommended continued family 

maintenance services. 

On August 10, 2018, the juvenile court found that

continued jurisdiction was necessary, and continued the matter 

with orders for continued family maintenance. 

Section 342 Petition

On October 14, 2018, the children were detained from 

mother. On that date, the social worker received a referral 

alleging physical abuse by mother of David. 

The social worker went to the paternal grandmother’s home 

to investigate the referral. The paternal grandmother said that 

she was the monitor for father’s visits. She and mother

exchanged the children at the Temple City Sheriff Station. 

During the last exchange, the paternal grandmother

noticed dried blood on David’s nose. When the paternal 

grandmother asked him what had happened, David said that 

mother had slapped him on the face twice for misbehaving. The 

paternal grandmother went into the police station to report the 

incident. 

The social worker then interviewed minor privately. She

was reluctant to disclose that she or her siblings were physically 

abused by mother. Once the children were taken into protective 

custody, minor disclosed that mother hits David with a “chancla” 

(sandal) on his back and bottom when he misbehaves at school. 

She denied that mother hit her or her sister.

Minor was extremely tearful and visibly upset as she 

recounted the moment mother was taken into police custody. She 

said, “‘It’s David’s fault that my mom got arrested.’” The social 

worker told minor that it was not the children’s fault that mother 
5

was arrested. Minor informed the social worker that mother 

always told them that if they said anything to the police and 

social workers, they would have to live in a foster home.

The social worker also interviewed David. He first stated 

that mother only hit him with a sandal on his lower back and 

buttocks. After several hours, David told the social worker that 

mother hits him in the face when he gets in trouble at school. On 

that day, he said a “‘bad word’” and when mother heard him, she 

slapped him in the face twice, causing his nose to bleed. David 

said mother threw a tissue at him and told him to wipe up the 

blood. The social worker saw dried blood inside of the child’s left 

nostril.

The social worker also spoke to Deputy Gonzalez at the 

Temple City Sheriff Station. Deputy Gonzales stated that the 

paternal grandmother brought the children to the Las Tunas 

Station to report that mother had physically abused David that 

day. David said that mother had slapped him in the face two 

times for misbehaving. The second slap caused the child’s nose to 

bleed. 

Deputy Gonzalez observed that the child had dried blood on 

his nose and a bruise on his left nostril. He stated that Deputy 

Rivera had detained mother in the back seat of the patrol car. As 

mother was being detained, she turned to David and shouted, 

“‘You f***ing did this! Now because of you, you and your sisters 

are going to a foster home!’” 

On October 16, 2018, DCFS filed a petition pursuant to 

section 342 alleging that the children needed the protection of the 

juvenile court because of mother’s physical abuse of David.

Both mother and father appeared for an arraignment and 

detention hearing held the following day. At that hearing, 
6

mother requested that the girls (minor and J.G.) be released into 

her care, as they were differently situated from David. The 

juvenile court denied her request, and detained all three children.

The juvenile court granted DCFS discretion to release the 

children to any appropriate relative and set a jurisdictional 

hearing in December 2018.

Jurisdiction/Disposition Report

The November 29, 2018, jurisdiction/disposition report on 

the section 342 petition reiterated what mother had done and 

said to David.

Mother refused to provide law enforcement with her home 

address. The children had been placed with a maternal stepgrandmother.

The children were interviewed in the home of their 

maternal step-grandmother. Minor told the social worker, “‘I’m 

worried about my brother because he’s really not behaving or 

listening to anyone.’” She also stated, “‘When we were going to 

visit with our dad, we were getting ready and he [David] was 

watching TV. My mom told him to get ready and he wasn’t 

listening at first. We were at the car and when my brother 

opened the trunk he said a bad word and my mom told him to get 

in the car and she went to smack him in the mouth, but she 

missed and hit his nose. She didn’t mean to scratch his nose; it’s 

just cause she has long nails.’”

The social worker asked minor if she had ever seen mother 

hit David before and she said, “‘No.’” The social worker then 

asked what mother did to discipline David when he did not 

behave and minor said, “‘She would put him on time out or send 

him to his bed.’” Minor denied that mother ever hit her or her 

sister.
7

When the social worker interviewed David, he denied that 

mother had slapped him. He said that mother made his nose 

bleed, but he forgot how. He admitted that someone told him not 

to talk about how mother made his nose bleed, but when asked 

who told him, he again said he forgot.

Five-year-old J.G. was also interviewed. She said, “‘I worry 

about my brother cause sometimes he’s bad.’” She disclosed that 

mother “always” hits him, sometimes with her hand or a belt.

Mother was also interviewed for the report. She described 

David as always being in trouble, and stated that his behavior 

was worse when he visited with father.

Mother explained what had happened on the day the 

children were detained. She said that on Saturday, she went to 

get each of them their own pumpkins so they could carve them. 

David was poking his sisters with the pumpkin knife so she took 

it away and told him he could not carve anymore. Mother’s sister 

had baked cookies for everyone, but David had woken up early

the next morning and ate all the cookies.

Mother said that later that day she herded the children 

into the car to visit with father. When David got to the car, he 

got his car seat from the trunk. He let go of the car trunk and 

said, “‘Oh shit.’” Mother said she did not hear what David said so 

she asked him, but he would not tell her. Instead, he just 

smirked. He just kept smirking, so mother smacked him in the 

mouth, but when she did, he put up his arms to block the blow, 

and she ended up hitting his nose. 

DCFS recommended that the children remain in 

placement, and the parents receive reunification services.
8

Jurisdiction/Disposition Hearing

On December 6, 2018, mother pled no contest to an 

amended section 342 petition.3

The juvenile court then proceeded into the dispositional

phase of the matter. The children’s attorney agreed with a 

suitable placement order for the children, even though the 

children wished to return to mother’s home. Counsel also 

requested more intensive services for David.

Mother requested that the children be returned to her care. 

She objected to DCFS’s request that she participate in a 

psychological evaluation, and the juvenile court determined that 

mother’s mental health needs could best be addressed in 

individual counseling.

The juvenile court ordered the children removed from 

mother’s custody and suitably placed. It ordered mother to 

complete a parenting course for children with special needs, and 

participate in counseling with a licensed therapist.

Status Review Report

On May 22, 2019, DCFS submitted its six-month review 

report to the juvenile court for the section 366.21, subdivision (e), 

hearing. Mother reported that she was in counseling at Arroyo 

Vista Family Health, but did not provide DCFS with the name of 

her therapist until late April 2019. She also reported that she 

3 As amended, the sustained section 342 petition provides 

that on October 14, 2018, mother slapped David’s face, inflicting 

bruising and bleeding to his left nostril. “Such physical discipline 

was excessive and caused the child unreasonable pain and 

suffering. The mother’s physical discipline of the child endangers 

the child’s physical health and safety, placing” all three children 

at risk of suffering serious physical harm.
9

was receiving mental health services at Via Care. She began 

counseling there on March 8, 2019, but her therapist’s last day 

working in that facility was on March 22, 2019. Although the 

social worker called numerous times, she was not able to 

determine if mother had been assigned another therapist. 

Mother said that she was an outpatient with the Department of 

Mental Health, and had been diagnosed with “‘Major Depressive 

Disorder, Recurrent Episode, Moderate.’” She met with a 

licensed clinical social worker once a month. Unfortunately, the 

licensed clinical social worker would not share information about 

mother’s treatment beyond the dates that she received treatment. 

According to the DCFS social worker, mother was 

combative during most contacts with the social worker, and 

contacts usually ended with mother yelling and screaming and 

causing the office security to request she leave the office. During 

a discussion in late April 2019, the social worker asked mother 

about her housing, but mother was unwilling to confirm her 

current housing or address.

Last Minute Information Report

On July 16, 2019, DCFS reported that father was 

concerned with the maternal grandmother’s ability to monitor 

mother’s visits. According to father, the maternal grandmother 

was frightened of mother and did not want any problems with

her. The maternal grandmother had texted father and stated 

that she hated monitoring the visits. In addition, there was an 

incident during a visit where mother’s boyfriend became angry 

with the maternal aunt, and mother slapped him and told him to 

leave. The children were upset, and J.G. was crying. David told 

father that he was afraid something would happen to the 

maternal grandmother.
10

Section 366.21, Subdivision (e), Hearing

At the July 16, 2019 hearing, DCFS moved to admit its 

reports into evidence.

Mother then introduced her documentation, including a 

letter from Arroyo Vista indicating that mother had received 

therapy from April 3, 2018, through August 20, 2018. Mother 

had been diagnosed with “Major Depressive Disorder and Anxiety 

Disorder.” The letter concluded by stating that mother would 

benefit from regular ongoing therapy to address her symptoms 

and needed to continue to work on her therapeutic goals. Mother 

also moved into evidence several letters from Via Care, 

summarizing efforts for her therapy, including a statement that 

mother had completed her therapy assessment on May 24, 2019, 

and was participating in weekly one-hour individual sessions.

In addition, mother offered an April 22, 2019, letter from 

the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health, which 

provided that mother had been diagnosed with Major Depressive 

Disorder, and was receiving treatment. Her next scheduled 

appointment was for June 6, 2019.

Last, mother produced a letter from Barrio Action dated 

May 29, 2019, stating that she had enrolled in a 12-week 

parenting program, and had thus far attended seven sessions. 

She received a certificate of completion of parenting class dated 

July 2, 2019.

Mother’s counsel informed the juvenile court that mother 

was seeking a home of parent order, or in the alternative, 

unmonitored visitation with the children. Mother then testified 

on her own behalf.

Mother testified that she understood her case was in 

dependency court because she hit her son, causing him to bleed. 
11

She was in counseling, and had been diagnosed with depression 

and anxiety. She had been seeing one of her therapists for a 

month. Her other therapist she saw once every two months. She 

had been dealing with past trauma in therapy, and learned that 

she needed to spend more time outdoors.

Mother stated that at her visits she went to the park, 

Chuck E. Cheese’s, and the movies with the children, as well as 

other activities. She also took them to the library so that they 

could improve their reading skills.

In addition, mother testified that she had been a stay-athome mother for 10 years, and her children were everything to 

her. She promised that she would not repeat her mistake. 

Mother testified that the paternal grandmother would say 

anything to get what she wanted, and she lied when she said the 

children told her that mother’s boyfriend was present during the 

visits. Mother testified that she would not give the social worker 

her address because the social worker had threatened her prior 

roommate, and had given her address to father.

On cross-examination, mother was questioned about an 

incident when security had to be called to remove her from the 

DCFS office. Mother explained that she had complained that the 

social worker was not helping her. According to mother, the 

dispute with the social worker at the DCFS office was centered 

around the social worker not providing mother a receipt for a 

document mother gave to the social worker. Then, according to 

mother, the social worker told her that she was not going to do 

anything for mother, including approving funds for 

transportation. Mother began to raise her voice. She contended 

that she was in control, and that she was only raising her voice to 
12

get someone’s attention so that she could get a new social worker. 

Security was called because she was loud.

After entertaining closing argument, the juvenile court 

granted mother continued family reunification services and 

unmonitored visitation in a public setting.

Status Review Report

On December 24, 2019, DCFS reported that David had had 

ongoing issues with hitting other children and not following 

instructions at school.

In September 2019, the social worker attended a 

wraparound meeting with the service providers for David. 

Present at the meeting were mother, the caregiver, the three 

children, the maternal aunt, mother’s parent partner,4 and a 

child and family specialist. The team members stated that David 

was doing well at home and at school. As the meeting continued, 

the social worker asked if the team would be able to provide bunk 

beds and car seats for the children as the children were currently 

sleeping on mattresses on the floor. The parent partner stated 

that she would make a request for the bunk beds and car seats,

but she could not guarantee anything.

Mother then stated that the request for the bunk beds and

car seats had been pending for months. The social worker 

4 “Parent Partners have successfully navigated the 

[dependency] system and now work in partnership with DCFS to 

provide support, information and mentorship to parents who 

have recently lost custody of their children.” 

(<https://dcfs.lacounty.gov/parents/parent-resources/dcfs-parentservices/parents-in-partnership/> [as of Mar. 9, 2021], archived at 

<https://perma.cc/BPN4-4TEC>)
13

explained that DCFS had to exhaust resources to see if the bunk 

beds and car seats could be obtained via a donation. Mother 

appeared angry, and accused the caregiver and social worker of 

lying. The social worker asked mother if a meeting could be 

scheduled to address her concerns rather than discussing them in 

front of the children. Mother told the caregiver, “‘You lie and [the 

social worker] lies . . . to me so who is telling the truth,’” and the 

caregiver began to cry and said, “‘I am trying to help you, I don’t 

lie to you.’” The social worker asked mother to leave the meeting 

as the caregiver was crying and the children were present. 

Mother refused to leave, so the social worker asked that the 

children go to their bedroom.

Finally, mother left the meeting with her parent partner. 

The caregiver then told the social worker that mother had been 

upset since Friday when she went to the school for an event for 

David and the school refused to allow mother inside the school 

until it obtained approval from DCFS. The school contacted 

DCFS, which gave permission for mother to be present. The 

caregiver’s adult daughter stated that while at the school event, 

mother became angry with the caregiver because she had not 

purchased the school tickets for the children’s pizza and yelled at 

the caregiver while in the presence of the children.

The parent partner returned to the meeting without

mother, and told the team that mother appeared to be bullying 

the caregiver. The caregiver cried and stated that mother blamed 

her for things; she tried her best to stay quiet, followed through 

on the visits, and allowed mother to take the children to the 

doctor. The caregiver stated, “‘The mother tells me I have my 

parental rights and I can take them to the doctor and that is the 

way she is, she is angry and upset and wants things her way, like 
14

the bunk beds and the car seats. I told her I would buy the car 

seats at Walmart and she said no, [she did not] want car seats 

from Walmart and that is the way she is, she has to have things 

her way or she gets mad.’”

The wraparound members suggested that the caregiver not 

monitor visits for mother and mother’s visits should not take 

place in the caregiver’s home.

After speaking with the team and the caregiver, the social 

worker spoke to the children. The children were upset, and 

minor and J.G. asked when they were going to see mother. The 

social worker apologized to the children.

DCFS reported that mother received mental health services 

from January through December 2019 at Northeast Mental 

Health and met monthly with a psychiatric social worker. Her 

last therapy session took place on December 9, 2019. On 

December 12, 2019, the clinical supervisor said that mother had 

informed the clinic that she would no longer be attending their 

clinic.

In January 2019, mother had a psychiatric consultation, 

and the psychiatrist recommended psychiatric medication for her. 

Mother declined and no further appointments with the

psychiatrist were scheduled.

Mother received individual therapy with Via Care from 

May 2019 through August 2019. According to the therapist’s 

progress letter, mother had been participating in weekly 

individual therapy sessions consistently and was on track to 

complete the services. During her time in therapy, her goal had 

been to increase her coping skills to regulate her mood. She also 

received psychoeducation regarding trauma, healthy 

relationships, and generational patterns of abuse. The therapist 
15

recommended that mother continue behavioral health therapy to 

continue to engage in healthy coping and cognitive behavioral 

therapy.

Mother then attended individual therapy at Hillsides 

Baldwin Park office, and signed a release of information so that 

the social worker could speak with the clinic. The clinical 

supervisor stated that the therapy notes indicated that the 

therapist and mother were working on issues related to anxiety.

DCFS opined that mother still did not understand that her 

behavior was the reason her children were removed from her 

care. After all, in July 2019, mother stated she had hit David 

and, “‘as a scolding,’” she had to attend parenting classes. When 

asked what she would do differently other than hitting David, 

mother stated, “‘He was hitting the girls, he was fighting, you 

don’t want me to punish him. I was trying to discipline him and 

nothing worked. I ran out of options. I would do the same thing 

as before even though I got arrested.’” And, during a meeting 

with the social worker and her supervisor in mid-December 2019, 

mother stated, “‘The father is the one at fault for all of this case 

and that is the reason why we are all f***ed up.’”

DCFS recommended that mother participate in a 

psychological evaluation to assess what services and intervention

might be best for the parents.

Section 366.21, Subdivision (f), Hearing

At the January 14, 2020, 12-month review hearing, mother 

requested that her visitation with the children revert to

unmonitored. The children’s counsel recommended that 

visitation remain monitored. The juvenile court ordered that 

mother have monitored visitation, and continued the matter for 

an evidentiary hearing.
16

Last Minute Information for the Court

On March 12, 2020, DCFS reported that, in general, the 

monitored visits between mother and the children went well. The 

children enjoyed their visits with mother. However, there was an 

incident at minor’s school on January 25, 2020.

Minor had won second place at a science fair, and her

school was holding an event to hand out prizes. The social 

worker contacted the school and informed it that mother could

attend the ceremony. According to the caregiver and father, 

while at the school, the children had run to mother and had 

unmonitored contact with her. Father said that during the 

unmonitored visitation, mother interrogated the children and 

told them that father had cheated on her.

The social worker talked to mother’s current therapist. 

When the social worker asked the therapist if they had addressed 

mother’s conduct at the team meeting concerning the children, 

the therapist stated, “‘We talked about it but I cannot disclose 

any information to you.’” When the social worker asked if 

anxiety was a trigger for mother’s anger, the therapist reiterated

that she could not disclose any information.

Contested Section 366.21, Subdivision (f), Hearing

On March 12, 2020, DCFS and mother moved various 

reports and documents into evidence.

Mother then called the maternal aunt as her first witness. 

She testified that it had been years since she had seen mother 

and the children together. She also stated that if the children 

were returned to mother, she would be able to offer mother any 

assistance she needed.

Mother testified next. She said she understood that the 

case was in dependency court because she had hit her son, and 
17

she understood that that was the wrong thing to do. She had 

attended parenting classes and participated in therapy. She had 

also attended counseling sessions with three different therapists. 

The first time she switched counselors was because the sessions 

were too infrequent. Then she participated in a 12-week 

program, and she started with another therapist in October 2019.

Mother also stated that she enrolled in anger management. 

However, she had just enrolled, and had not actually attended 

any classes as of the day of the hearing.

On cross-examination, mother said that in her current 

therapy sessions she discussed missing her children and learning 

to talk without attitude and be friendlier.

At the conclusion of mother’s testimony, the juvenile court 

entertained closing argument. Mother requested that the 

juvenile court find that DCFS had failed to make reasonable 

efforts to assist her. She also requested that the children be 

returned to her care, or, in the alternative, that her visitation 

with the children be liberalized. Counsel for the children 

requested continued reunification services for mother and that 

mother’s visitation with her children be liberalized after she 

completed a certain number of anger management classes. 

Counsel concluded with “I do believe the court can find by [a] 

preponderance of the evidence a substantial risk of detriment to 

the children if they were returned to mother’s care today.” DCFS 

argued that it had made reasonable efforts, and agreed with the 

children’s counsel that the children should not be returned to 

mother at that time. 

Ultimately, the juvenile court found that DCFS had 

demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that there was 

a risk of harm of returning the children to mother because
18

mother had not yet learned to control her anger. In support, the 

juvenile court referenced the incident at the team meeting when 

mother lost control and accused the social worker and the 

children’s caregiver of lying while the children were present, 

causing the caregiver to cry and upsetting the children. 

Additionally, mother’s parent partner was concerned that mother 

was bullying the caregiver. The juvenile court stated, “And I 

think this actually goes to the heart of what the court has 

observed in court, which is that whenever the mother—when 

there are criticisms of the mother, the mother reacts and 

everyone is wrong, she is defensive, she engages in conduct that 

is not productive, and that she effectively bullies other people.”

The juvenile court then adopted the suggestion of the

children’s counsel, and liberalized mother’s visitation to 

unmonitored after she completed six anger management sessions. 

DCFS was given discretion to limit mother’s visitation to 

monitored if there were any incidents of inappropriate 

discussions of the case with the children or incidents of anger by 

mother.

Appeal

Mother timely filed her notice of appeal, challenging the 

juvenile court’s March 12, 2020, order concerning all three 

children.

DISCUSSION

I. Forfeiture

Mother filed a notice of appeal concerning all three 

children. However, her opening brief only discusses minor. In 

fact, mother specifically argues that only minor should be 

returned to her because she is in a different position than her 

siblings. Mother’s failure to make an argument concerning David 
19

and J.G. forfeits any argument concerning them. (In re Daniel M.

(2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 703, 707, fn. 4.) It follows that mother’s 

appeal concerning these two children is dismissed.

II. Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s 

determination that return of minor to mother created a 

substantial risk of detriment to minor

A. Applicable law and standard of review

At the 12-month review hearing, which is a permanency 

hearing, the juvenile court “shall determine the permanent plan

for the child, which shall include a determination of whether the 

child will be returned to the child’s home and, if so, when 

. . . . After considering the relevant and admissible evidence, the 

court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of 

his or her parent or legal guardian unless the court it finds, by a 

preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to his 

or her parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of 

detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional wellbeing of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of 

establishing that detriment.” (§ 366.21, subd. (f)(1).)

“‘At the dispositional hearing, and at each review hearing 

prior to permanency planning, there is a statutory presumption 

that the child will be returned to parental custody. . . . At 6–, 

12–, and 18–month review hearings the juvenile court must 

return the child to the custody of the parent unless it determines, 

by a preponderance of the evidence, that return of the child would 

create a substantial risk of detriment to the child’s physical or 

emotional well-being.’ [Citation.]” (David B. v. Superior Court

(2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 768, 789 (David B.).)

The “substantial risk of detriment” standard “must be 

construed as a fairly high one. It cannot mean merely that the 
20

parent in question is less than ideal, did not benefit from the 

reunification services as much as we might have hoped, or seems

less capable than an available foster parent or other family 

member.” (David B., supra, 123 Cal.App.4th at p. 789.)

“In evaluating detriment, the juvenile court must consider

the extent to which the parent participated in reunification 

services. [Citations.] The court must also consider the efforts or 

progress the parent has made toward eliminating the conditions 

that led to the child’s out-of-home placement. [Citations.]” (In re 

Yvonne W. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1400.)

“We review the juvenile court’s finding of detriment for 

substantial evidence. [Citations.] Under that standard we 

inquire whether the evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, 

supports the court’s determination. We resolve all conflicts in 

support of the determination, indulge in all legitimate inferences 

to uphold the findings and may not substitute our deductions for 

those of the juvenile court. [Citations.]” (Georgeanne G. v. 

Superior Court (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 856, 864–865.)

B. Analysis

Applying these legal principles, we conclude that ample 

evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that minor would 

have been at substantial risk of serious physical harm if returned 

to mother. DCFS filed a section 300 petition at the onset of these 

proceedings because of domestic violence between mother and 

father. During the pendency of these proceedings, the children 

were detained from mother because of her physical abuse of 

David. While these proceedings were continuing, mother 

repeatedly demonstrated that she had not gained any insight into 

her anger management issues. She was repeatedly combative 

with the DCFS social worker. The maternal grandmother was 
21

afraid of her. During a wraparound meeting, mother got angry 

and accused the caregiver and social worker of lying; in fact, 

mother’s parent partner believed that mother was bullying the 

caregiver. In July 2019, mother still did not have a grasp on why 

her children had been detained from her. And, by the time of the 

March 12, 2020, hearing, although mother had enrolled in anger 

management, she had not actually attended any classes. While 

we applaud mother’s efforts in therapy, we cannot agree that her 

issues have been resolved such that minor could have been 

returned to her custody safely.

On appeal, mother agrees that there was substantial 

evidence to support the juvenile court’s continued removal of 

David and J.G. However, she claims that minor is differently 

situated from her younger siblings and could therefore be safely 

returned to mother’s custody. Specifically, she contends that any 

risk of physical abuse to minor is low because (1) she had never 

been the target of physical abuse, (2) she lacked the behavioral 

issues that contributed to David’s abuse, and (3) she was older 

and capable of reporting any abuse to father or any other 

relatives. We cannot agree.

Even though minor may not have been the target of 

mother’s physical abuse, it is undisputed that mother physically 

abused David. (See In re D.B. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 320, 330–

331 [evidence that parents hit child with a belt four times a 

month, leaving him with wounds in different stages of healing, 

supported juvenile court’s finding that child’s sibling was at 

substantial risk of serious physical abuse].) And, there is ample 

evidence of mother displaying inappropriate angry behavior at 

persons other than David, whose “negative behavior,” according 

to mother, “was undeniably a contributing factor.” Mother 
22

displayed inappropriate behavior to the caregiver and the social 

worker. In addition, the children reported seeing mother strike 

her boyfriend during a monitored visit. Under these 

circumstances, the fact that minor was articulate and could 

report any abuse should it occur is not grounds for reversal. (In 

re N.M. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 159, 165 [juvenile court need not 

wait until a child is abused or injured before taking steps to 

protect the child].)

In re Hailey T. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 139 does not compel 

a different result. In that case, after an infant presented with 

unexplained injuries, the juvenile court removed both the infant 

and his older sister from parental custody. (Id. at p. 145.) The 

appellate court reversed as to the older sister. After all, there 

was no evidence that she was ever a victim of abuse in the 

parents’ home, she was articulate and attended school, and there 

was “abundant evidence that [the parents] were good parents 

who enjoyed a healthy relationship.” (Id. at p. 147.) In addition, 

there was no evidence of domestic violence between them; neither 

parent had substance abuse problems; and there was no evidence 

that either parent “suffered from mental health conditions, 

developmental delays or other social issues that often are at the 

root of dependency cases and might place children at continuing 

risk in the home.” (Ibid.) Furthermore, the parents “started 

services at the earliest opportunity, showed progress in the 

services and had meaningful and productive visits with the 

children.” (Id. at pp. 147–148.)

For the reasons set forth above, the factual scenario in In re 

Hailey T. is a far cry from the situation in the instant case.
23

DISPOSITION

Mother’s appeal concerning David and J.G. is dismissed. In 

all other respects, the juvenile court’s order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

______________________________, J.

ASHMANN-GERST

We concur:

_______________________________, P. J.

LUI

_______________________________, J.

CHAVEZ