Filed 9/23/20 In re M.P. CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

In re M.P. et al., Persons Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

B302090

Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No.

19LJJP00694A, 

19LJJP00694B

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

Me.P.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County. Michael C. Kelley, Judge. Affirmed.

Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Appellant.

Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, 

Assistant County Counsel, and Peter Ferrera, Principal Deputy 

County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________
2

The juvenile court assumed jurisdiction over mother’s 

13- and seven-year-old daughters upon a finding that mother’s 

recurring abuse of Oxycontin posed a substantial risk to the 

children’s physical health and safety. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, 

subd. (b).)1 The court did not declare the children dependents. 

Instead, it ordered informal supervision and family maintenance 

services under section 360, subdivision (b). Mother contends 

the evidence is insufficient to support the jurisdictional finding. 

We disagree. While mother had made meaningful progress 

toward overcoming her addiction, the evidence showed she had 

relapsed in the past after making similar progress, and the 

possibility of another relapse posed a continuing risk of harm 

to her children that warranted informal supervision. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Consistent with our standard of review, we state the facts 

in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s findings, 

resolving all conflicts and drawing all reasonable inferences 

to uphold the court’s order, if possible. (In re Christopher R.

(2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1216 (Christopher R.).)

The children, 13-year-old M.P. and seven-year-old V.P., 

live with mother, their maternal aunt, and their maternal 

grandparents. Mother and father are divorced. Mother has 

primary custody of the children and father has visitation 

two days a week for a few hours and every other weekend.

In July 2019, the Los Angeles County Department of 

Children and Family Services (Department) received a referral 

alleging M.P. had walked in on mother “ ‘free basing’ ” drugs in 

a bedroom that mother shared with her younger daughter, V.P. 

1 Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions 

Code.
3

M.P. described walking into the room and seeing mother smoking 

something off a piece of foil with a pen and a lighter. She had 

smelled the distinctive scent for about a year and knew it was 

drugs, but she did not know what type of drug it was. She told 

her grandmother and aunt. Her grandmother told M.P. she 

would “handle it” and instructed M.P. “not to tell anyone.”

M.P. also described an incident when mother had been 

intoxicated and fell down the stairs while caring for V.P. The 

13-year-old explained, “My mom fell down the stairs late at night, 

in the dark. It was normal for her to be smoking as the smell 

had been around for a while. [V.P.] was by her side [when] mom 

fell down the stairs.” Mother told father she was just drunk 

at the time. She acknowledged V.P. “freaked out” and was 

“hysterically crying.”

Mother admitted using Oxycontin for about five years. A 

coworker supplied her with the drug. At her worst she was using 

“about four to five pills” and “smoking them.” She said she used 

“foil and a pen” and admitted, “I would use everywhere; in my 

car, anywhere.” She acknowledged she became more aggressive 

and isolated herself when she used drugs. She told the social 

worker, “I’m sure I placed [the children] at risk when I was 

using.” She said having M.P. “catch” her was “an eye opener.”

In March 2019, mother told the maternal grandparents 

about her drug problem and attempted a “home detox[ ].” She 

relapsed after 60 days of sobriety. Although she was isolating 

herself again, the maternal grandparents “never addressed 

or asked anything” about her relapse. She went back to using 

two to three pills a day. Eventually, in May 2019, her parents 

questioned her about her sobriety. She broke down and told 

them she could not overcome her addiction on her own.
4

On June 10, 2019, mother entered an inpatient treatment 

program. She completed “28 to 30 days” of inpatient treatment, 

followed by two weeks of “transitional living.” She continued to 

attend day treatment sessions and to test for drugs through the 

program. She said she might only attend her outpatient program 

for another two weeks depending on her insurance coverage.

The maternal grandmother defended her decision not 

to inform father of mother’s addiction. She said she and the 

grandfather anticipated the Department would become involved 

if father knew what had happened. She maintained the children 

were not in danger, but also acknowledged mother was “driving 

around with the girls and she [was] higher than a kite.”

On October 14, 2019, mother’s drug treatment program 

provided a letter confirming her participation. The program 

reported mother “presents in the preparation stage of change 

with regards to the disease concept and readiness to change 

her behavior.” All of mother’s random drug tests were clean.

On October 23, 2019, the juvenile court held a combined 

jurisdiction and disposition hearing. Mother testified. She 

admitted she had struggled with Oxycontin, but maintained she 

had learned to cope with the “triggers” that led to her drug abuse. 

She said she was committed to completing her programs without 

a court order, but acknowledged her insurance might not cover 

the full amount of her treatment. If she lost insurance coverage, 

she planned to continue attending support meetings and to 

receive counseling from her sponsor. Her parents had been 

attending meetings with her.

Mother said her drug use “became an everyday addiction” 

during the past year. A friend at work had introduced her to 

Oxycontin. She felt depressed during her divorce and had been 
5

looking for something to “numb the pain.” She said tensions with 

father remained high and there had been recent disputes over 

visitation. She planned to return to work in the coming month 

and did not know whether the friend who supplied her with 

Oxycontin was still there.

Mother admitted there were times she cared for the 

children while under the influence, and she acknowledged her 

drug abuse impacted her children emotionally, as she was not 

“there as much as [she] thought [she] was” when she was using. 

She also acknowledged the drug was more powerful and 

dangerous when she smoked it.

Mother’s counsel asked the juvenile court to dismiss the 

petition. She argued mother did not need the Department’s 

supervision because mother had voluntarily entered treatment. 

The children’s counsel argued the court should sustain the drug 

abuse allegation, emphasizing mother’s treatment program 

reported she was only in the “preparation stage” of recovery. 

The Department joined the children’s counsel, adding that the 

family strife that triggered mother’s drug use was ongoing.

The juvenile court sustained the petition under section 300, 

subdivision (b), finding mother’s history of substance abuse 

posed a substantial risk of harm to the children. With respect 

to disposition, the court declined to adjudicate the children 

dependents. Instead it ordered the family to receive six months 

of Department supervised family maintenance services under 

section 360, subdivision (b).

Mother filed a timely notice of appeal from the disposition 

order.
6

DISCUSSION

Under section 360, subdivision (b), “[i]f the court finds that 

the child is a person described by Section 300, it may, without 

adjudicating the child a dependent child of the court, order that 

services be provided to keep the family together and place the 

child and the child’s parent or guardian under the supervision 

of the social worker” for six to 12 months. If the court orders

a program of informal supervision, “ ‘it does not dismiss the 

dependency petition or otherwise set it aside. The true finding

of jurisdiction remains. It is only the dispositional alternative 

of declaring the child a dependent that is not made.’ ” (In re 

Adam D. (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1260 (Adam D.), quoting 

Seiser & Kumli, Cal. Juvenile Courts Practice and Procedure 

(2009) § 2.124[2], pp. 2-283 to 2-284.) An order for informal 

supervision under section 360, subdivision (b) is an appealable 

disposition order. (Adam D., at p. 1261.)

The juvenile court asserted jurisdiction under section 300, 

subdivision (b). The statute authorizes jurisdiction upon a 

finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a “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 . . . to provide regular care for 

the child due to the parent’s . . . substance abuse.” 

“Although section 300 generally requires proof the child is 

subject to the defined risk of harm at the time of the jurisdiction 

hearing [citations], the court need not wait until a child is 

seriously abused or injured to assume jurisdiction and take 

steps necessary to protect the child. [Citation.] The court may 

consider past events in deciding whether a child presently needs 

the court’s protection. [Citation.] A parent’s ‘ “[p]ast conduct 
7

may be probative of current conditions” if there is reason to 

believe that the conduct will continue.’ ” (Christopher R., supra,

225 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1215–1216.) An unresolved drug problem 

compromises a parent’s “ability to care for [her] child, thus 

justifying the assumption of jurisdiction.” (In re R.R. (2010) 

187 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1284.)

In addition, the Legislature has declared “[t]he provision 

of 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. Successful 

participation in a treatment program for substance abuse may 

be considered in evaluating the home environment.” (§ 300.2; 

Christopher R., supra, 225 Cal.App.4th at p. 1216.)

We review the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings for 

substantial evidence. (Christopher R., supra, 225 Cal.App.4th 

at p. 1216.) “Under this standard ‘[w]e review the record to 

determine whether there is any substantial evidence to support 

the juvenile court’s conclusions, and we resolve all conflicts 

and make all reasonable inferences from the evidence to uphold 

the court’s orders, if possible.’ ” (Ibid.)

There was substantial evidence that mother’s drug abuse 

placed the children at risk of serious physical harm. Mother 

admitted her Oxycontin use had become “an everyday addiction” 

during the past year. She was using “about four to five pills” 

a day and “smoking them.” She used “everywhere,” including 

in the car and in the home. The maternal grandmother reported 

mother had been “driving around with the girls and she [was] 

higher than a kite.” Before catching mother freebasing 

Oxycontin, 13-year-old M.P. had smelled the distinctive scent 

of drugs around the home for about a year. When asked about 
8

the effect her drug use had on her daughters, mother admitted, 

“I’m sure I placed [the children] at risk when I was using.”

Mother contends this evidence should be disregarded. She 

maintains her drug use had been “resolved to such an extent” 

by the jurisdiction hearing that it “posed no risk of substantial or 

imminent harm to the children.” She emphasizes she voluntarily 

confronted her abuse. She had completed a residential drug 

program and had tested negative for Oxycontin for four months. 

She continued to participate in aftercare services and was 

attending support meetings with her parents and a sponsor. 

She also lived with the maternal grandparents who, mother 

maintains, would “protect the children from any potential future 

problems, should [she] lapse.” In view of her voluntary efforts 

and stable family circumstances, mother argues it was “highly 

speculative” for the court to find her past drug abuse established 

a current risk of harm to the children. (See In re M.W. (2015) 

238 Cal.App.4th 1444, 1454 [more than mere speculation is 

required to support a finding].)

There is no doubt that mother had made meaningful 

progress toward overcoming her addiction, but we do not agree 

this progress rendered the court’s jurisdictional finding highly 

speculative. On the contrary, the evidence supported a 

reasonable inference that mother might relapse into drug abuse, 

and that the grandparents’ support alone was insufficient 

to ensure the children’s safety. Our cases have consistently 

recognized the threat of relapse is sufficient to find a substantial 

risk of harm, even after lengthy periods of sobriety. (See In re 

J.C. (2014) 233 Cal.App.4th 1, 6–7 (J.C.) [no error in removing 

infant from the father’s custody where, notwithstanding the 

father’s plan to live with his parents and his seven months 
9

of sobriety, evidence showed he had “years-long struggles with 

drug abuse” and he was at “risk of relapsing”]; In re Amber M.

(2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 681, 686–687 [evidence supported denial 

of custody, notwithstanding 372 days of sobriety, where the 

mother had relapsed twice during the course of case, including 

once after more than 300 days of sobriety].)

The record shows that a few months before mother entered 

an inpatient treatment program she had attempted to “home 

detox” under the maternal grandparents’ supervision. After 

60 days of sobriety, mother was back to using two to three pills 

a day. For two to three weeks she exhibited the familiar signs 

of Oxycontin use—she became withdrawn and isolated herself 

from the family, but the grandparents “never addressed or 

asked anything” about her apparent relapse. The maternal 

grandmother suggested they kept silent about mother’s drug 

abuse because they anticipated social services would get involved 

if word got out. Mother said her contentious interactions with 

father had been a trigger for her drug use, and she acknowledged 

their relationship remained tense. A friend at work had 

introduced mother to Oxycontin, and mother was unsure whether 

that friend would still be there when she returned to work in the 

coming weeks. And, critically, although mother had been sober 

for over four months at the time of the jurisdiction hearing, she 

had been using Oxycontin for five years and her drug treatment 

program reported she “present[ed] in the preparation stage 

of change with regards to the disease concept and readiness 

to change her behavior.” From this evidence the juvenile court 

reasonably inferred mother’s recovery remained tenuous and the 

danger of relapse persisted. Based on mother’s history of drug 

abuse, including her admission that she cared for the girls while 
10

under the influence, the court reasonably found the potential 

for relapse posed a substantial risk of harm to her daughters. 

(See J.C., supra, 233 Cal.App.4th at pp. 6–7 [removal order 

supported where, although father had good attendance and clean 

tests in treatment program, his conduct before entering program, 

including drug use leading to removal of his two older children, 

suggested he was “prone to relapses”]; see also In re Cliffton B.

(2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 415, 424 [“200 days was not enough to 

reassure the juvenile court that the most recent relapse would be 

[the father’s] last”]; In re Kimberly F. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 519, 

531, fn. 9 [“It is the nature of addiction that one must be ‘clean’

for a much longer period than 120 days to show real reform.”].)

Substantial evidence supported the jurisdictional finding. 

The juvenile court did not err in asserting jurisdiction and 

ordering informal supervision under section 360, subdivision (b). 

(See Adam D., supra, 183 Cal.App.4th at p. 1262.)

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

EGERTON, J.

We concur:

LAVIN, Acting P. J. DHANIDINA, J.