Filed 2/14/22 In re Loyalty J. CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re LOYALTY J., a Person 

Coming Under the Juvenile 

Court Law.

 B312288

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 

20CCJP06773A)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF 

CHILDREN AND FAMILY 

SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

AYANNA K.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Lisa A. Brackelmanns, Juvenile Court 

Referee. Affirmed.

Christopher R. Booth, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
2

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

Assistant County Counsel, and Aileen Wong, Senior Deputy 

County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

__________________________________

Ayanna K., the mother of now-two-year-old Loyalty J., 

appeals the juvenile court’s jurisdiction findings and disposition 

order declaring Loyalty a dependent child of the court after the 

court sustained a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions 

Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1).1 Ayanna contends the 

court’s jurisdiction findings and disposition order were not 

supported by substantial evidence and the court abused its 

discretion by limiting her to monitored visitation. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. The Petition

In late November 2020 the Los Angeles County 

Department of Children and Family Services (Department) 

received a report Ayanna had been stopped at a sobriety 

checkpoint and arrested for driving under the influence of 

marijuana while Loyalty was in the car. At the time of the arrest 

Ayanna also had a large open Mason jar three-quarters full of 

marijuana in the glove compartment. According to the arresting 

officer Ayanna had watery, droopy eyes and the car smelled of 

marijuana. Ayanna and Loyalty were the only occupants of the 

car.

On December 2, 2020 a Department social worker 

interviewed Ayanna and observed her with Loyalty. The social 

1 Statutory references are to this code unless otherwise 

stated.
3

worker found Loyalty to be healthy, but she was not current on 

medical appointments or immunizations.

Ayanna claimed she did not know why she had been 

stopped at the checkpoint and said she had not been driving 

erratically. However, she admitted she had smoked a marijuana 

cigarette one hour prior to arriving at the checkpoint and had a

jar of marijuana in the car. Ayanna said another adult had been 

with her in the car when she was arrested, but she refused to 

give the person’s name.

Ayanna stated she smoked marijuana recreationally once 

or twice per week. She denied smoking in Loyalty’s presence, 

explaining she smoked in the car while Loyalty was inside the 

home sleeping. Ayanna told the social worker she did not know 

her current home address because she was receiving housing 

assistance and had been at her current residence only a few 

weeks and could not provide contact information for Loyalty’s 

father, Yeshua J., whom she only contacted through social media. 

Ayanna said she was no longer in a relationship with Yeshua but 

he had weekly visits with Loyalty.

Ayanna agreed to an on-demand drug test the day of her 

interview. She tested positive for marijuana at high levels.

In an interview with a Department social worker on 

December 22, 2020, Yeshua said he was concerned for Loyalty’s 

health and safety and had been planning to seek custody. He 

explained he did not think Ayanna fed Loyalty enough and did 

not clean up after her. Ayanna had not allowed Yeshua to see 

Loyalty for eight months, and Yeshua had not been able to 

contact Ayanna because she did not have permanent housing. 

Yeshua expressed concern that Ayanna chose to be homeless 

rather than live with him or her family. 
4

Yeshua acknowledged smoking marijuana with Ayanna 

when they were in a relationship. He denied smoking in 

Loyalty’s presence, but he claimed to have seen Ayanna smoke 

marijuana in the car while Loyalty was with her. Ayanna had 

told Yeshua she sold marijuana out of the car while Loyalty was 

with her.

Ayanna’s mother and brother told the social worker 

Ayanna was a good mother and they did not have any concerns 

regarding her marijuana use.

On December 28, 2020 the Department filed a two-count 

petition pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b). In the first 

count the Department alleged Ayanna placed Loyalty in a 

detrimental and endangering situation by driving under the 

influence of marijuana while Loyalty was in the car. The second 

count alleged Ayanna had a history of substance abuse and was a 

current abuser of marijuana, which interfered with her regular 

care and supervision of Loyalty.

At the December 31, 2020 detention hearing the court 

found a prima facie case for detaining Loyalty and placed her 

with Yeshua. The Department was ordered to provide services to 

Ayanna, including referrals for drug treatment, drug testing and 

individual counseling. The court specifically told Ayanna a 

missed drug test would be considered a positive test, and Ayanna 

stated she understood. The court ordered monitored visitation

for Ayanna three times per week. The court also ordered 

visitation could become unmonitored once Ayanna had achieved 

six consecutive negative drug tests.

2. The Jurisdiction/Disposition Report 

The Department filed a jurisdiction/disposition report on

February 11, 2021. The report contained a summary of an 
5

interview conducted with Ayanna on January 25, 2021. Ayanna 

again admitted she had smoked a marijuana cigarette prior to 

driving the car on the night of her arrest, but now stated she had 

done so two hours prior to being arrested. She said she “got 

caught up” at the checkpoint and was “a little high.” Ayanna 

denied smoking marijuana while caring for Loyalty or driving 

with her when under the influence of marijuana. She said she 

only smoked when the baby was asleep. When the social worker 

noted the contradiction between Ayanna’s statement she did not 

care for Loyalty when under the influence and her admission she 

was “a little high” on the night of her arrest while Loyalty was in 

her care, Ayanna answered, “Yeah.” The social worker then 

asked Ayanna if she felt it was inappropriate to drive while 

intoxicated with Loyalty in the car, to which Ayanna replied she 

understood it was wrong but got “caught up.” 

Ayanna told the social worker she had been using 

marijuana since she was 16 years old. She used it several times a 

week but claimed she could stop anytime. Ayanna knew she 

could have unmonitored visitation with Loyalty after six negative 

drug tests; however, she said she wanted to use marijuana to 

celebrate her 21st birthday later that week. She planned to stop 

using after that. Ayanna missed a drug test on January 21, 2021. 

As of mid-February Ayanna had not yet enrolled in a drug 

treatment program or begun individual counseling.

The social worker also interviewed Yeshua in late 

January 2021. Yeshua said he had often seen Ayanna smoke 

five to six marijuana cigarettes a day until she was too 

intoxicated to function. On one occasion he witnessed Ayanna 

driving with Loyalty in the car while Ayanna appeared under the 

influence of alcohol and had an open alcohol container with her. 
6

Ayanna’s car often smelled of marijuana, and Yeshua believed 

Ayanna smoked marijuana in Loyalty’s presence. 

According to the Department social worker, Loyalty 

appeared to be bonded to Yeshua. She was healthy and 

developmentally appropriate.

As of late January 2021 Yeshua reported Ayanna’s visits 

with Loyalty had been infrequent and she sometimes stayed only 

15 minutes. However, as of mid-February Ayanna had been 

visiting twice per week for several hours at a time.

The Department recommended the court sustain the 

petition and close the case with a custody order granting Yeshua 

sole legal and physical custody. The social worker explained 

Ayanna had shown little to no remorse for driving under the 

influence of marijuana and she did not appear to understand the 

danger of continued marijuana use while caring for Loyalty.

In a last minute information report filed April 2, 2021 the 

Department stated Ayanna had tested positive for marijuana 

three times between February 11, 2021 and March 15, 2021, 

although the levels of marijuana in Ayanna’s system had 

decreased from the high amount in December 2020 and had 

decreased slightly over the three tests in February and March. 

Ayanna claimed she had not used marijuana since late January 

and believed she was still testing positive as a result of being 

around her friends when they smoked.

3. The Jurisdiction/Disposition Hearing 

The jurisdiction/disposition hearing was held on 

April 13, 2021. Ayanna submitted a letter from her substance 

abuse counselor stating Ayanna had commenced treatment on 

March 25, 2021 and “is showing commitment to her recovery 

already.” The letter identified “cannabis dependence” as one of 
7

the “specific areas that need improvement” and would be 

addressed in Ayanna’s counseling sessions. Ayanna tested 

negative for marijuana on April 2, 2021. The Department, 

Yeshua and Loyalty objected to the letter on timeliness, 

authentication and hearsay grounds. The juvenile court 

admitted the letter into evidence, stating it would accord it the 

appropriate weight.

Proceeding to argument Ayanna’s counsel sought to dismiss 

the petition in its entirety, arguing there was no evidence of 

substance abuse and the arrest for driving under the influence 

had been an isolated incident. If the court were to sustain the 

petition, Ayanna’s counsel requested the case remain open and

Loyalty be released to her and Yeshua. Loyalty’s counsel 

concurred with the request to dismiss the substance abuse count 

but argued the court should sustain the allegation regarding 

driving under the influence. Loyalty’s counsel also argued for the 

case to remain open and for release of Loyalty to both parents. 

The juvenile court found by a preponderance of the 

evidence that the allegations in the petition were true and 

sustained the petition under section 300, subdivision (b)(1). In 

explaining its ruling the court stated that Ayanna “is clearly very 

reliant on marijuana” given that she used it on a regular basis, 

chose to use marijuana on her birthday rather than work toward 

gaining unmonitored visitation and had failed to regularly test 

negative for marijuana. 

The court declared Loyalty a dependent of the court and 

ordered her removed from Ayanna and placed with Yeshua under 

the supervision of the Department. The Department was ordered 

to provide reunification services to Ayanna, including substance 

abuse treatment, drug testing, parenting classes and monitored 
8

visitation for a minimum of six hours per week. Visitation could 

become unmonitored after Ayanna completed six consecutive 

negative drug tests.2 

DISCUSSION

1. Governing Law and Standard of Review

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; see In re Cole L. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 591, 601; In re 

A.F. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 283, 289.) In addition, the Legislature 

has declared, “The 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.” (§ 300.2; see In re Christopher R. (2014) 

225 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1216.)

Section 300, subdivision (b)(1), allows a child to be 

adjudged a dependent of the juvenile court when “[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 the child’s parent or guardian to adequately supervise 

2 On November 12, 2021, after Ayanna had filed her opening 

brief, the juvenile court continued the scheduled section 364

review hearing and ordered unmonitored overnight visits for 

Ayanna. In her reply brief Ayanna stated she “submits” on her 

appeal of the order for monitored visitation. We take judicial 

notice of the juvenile court’s November 12, 2021 minute order

(Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 459) and find Ayanna’s challenge to 

the court’s prior order of monitored visitation is now moot. 
9

or protect the child, or the willful or negligent failure of the 

child’s parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the 

child . . . .” A jurisdiction finding under section 300, 

subdivision (b)(1), requires the Department to prove 

three elements: (1) the parent’s or guardian’s neglectful conduct 

or failure or inability to protect the child; (2) causation; and 

(3) serious physical harm or illness or a substantial risk of 

serious physical harm or illness. (In re L.W. (2019) 

32 Cal.App.5th 840, 848; In re Joaquin C. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 

537, 561; see In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 624 

[“section 300(b)(1) authorizes dependency jurisdiction without a 

finding that a parent is at fault or blameworthy for her failure or 

inability to supervise or protect her child”].)

Although section 300 requires proof the child is subject to 

the defined risk of harm at the time of the jurisdiction hearing 

(In re D.L. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1142, 1146), the court need not 

wait until a child is seriously abused or injured to assume 

jurisdiction and take steps necessary to protect the child. (In re 

Kadence P. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1376, 1383; In re N.M. (2011) 

197 Cal.App.4th 159, 165.) The court may consider past events in 

deciding whether a child currently needs the court’s protection. 

(In re J.N. (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 767, 775; In re Christopher R., 

supra, 225 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1215-1216; In re N.M., at p. 165.) 

A parent’s “‘[p]ast conduct may be probative of current conditions’ 

if there is reason to believe that the conduct will continue.” 

(In re S.O. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 453, 461; accord, Kadence P., 

at p. 1384.)

Before the court may order a child removed from the 

physical custody of a parent with whom the child was residing at 

the time the dependency proceedings were initiated, it must find 
10

by clear and convincing evidence that the child would be at 

substantial risk of physical or emotional harm if returned home 

and there are no reasonable means by which the child can be 

protected without removal. (§ 361, subd. (c); In re T.V. (2013) 

217 Cal.App.4th 126, 135; see In re Anthony Q. (2016) 

5 Cal.App.5th 336, 347.) “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.” (In re T.V., at pp. 135-136.)

“‘In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence 

supporting the jurisdictional findings and disposition, we 

determine if substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, 

supports them. “In making this determination, we draw all 

reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings 

and orders of the dependency court; we review the record in the 

light most favorable to the court’s determinations; and we note 

that issues of fact and credibility are the province of the trial 

court.” [Citation.] “We do not reweigh the evidence or exercise 

independent judgment, but merely determine if there are 

sufficient facts to support the findings of the trial court.”’” (In re 

I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773.) We review the whole record in 

the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine 

whether it discloses substantial evidence such that a reasonable 

trier of fact could find that the order is appropriate. (Ibid.; 

accord, In re I.C. (2018) 4 Cal.5th 869, 892.)

In evaluating the propriety of a disposition order removing 

a child from a parent or guardian pursuant to section 361, in 

view of the requirement the juvenile court make the requisite 

findings based on clear and convincing evidence, we “must 

determine whether the record, viewed as a whole, contains 
11

substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could 

have made the finding of high probability demanded by this 

standard of proof.” (Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 

1005; see In re Nathan E. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 114, 123 [“[i]n 

reviewing for substantial evidence to support a dispositional 

order removing a child, we ‘keep[] in mind that the [juvenile] 

court was required to make its order based on the higher 

standard of clear and convincing evidence’”]; In re V.L. (2020) 

54 Cal.App.5th 147, 155 [O.B. is controlling in dependency 

cases].) 

2. Substantial Evidence Supports the Jurisdiction Finding

of Substance Abuse

Ayanna does not deny her past frequent use of marijuana 

but contends the evidence did not establish substance abuse.3 

3 In In re Drake M. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 754, 766, upon 

which Ayanna primarily relies, Division Three of this court held, 

for purposes of section 300, subdivision (b), a finding of substance 

abuse “must be based on evidence sufficient to (1) show that the 

parent or guardian at issue had been diagnosed as having a 

current substance abuse problem by a medical professional or 

(2) establish that the parent or guardian at issue has a current 

substance abuse problem as defined in the DSM-IV-TR.” After 

the decision in Drake M. the DSM-IV-TR’s definition of 

“substance abuse” was replaced in the Diagnostic and Statistical 

Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) by a more 

broadly defined classification of “substance use disorders,” which 

combines substance abuse and dependence. (See In re 

Christopher R., supra, 225 Cal.App.4th at p. 1218, fn. 6.) “DSM-5 

identifies 11 relevant criteria, including cravings and urges to 

use the substance; spending a lot of time getting, using, or 

recovering from use of the substance; giving up important social, 

occupational or recreational activities because of substance use; 
12

Ayanna is correct that use of marijuana or alcohol, 

standing alone, is insufficient to support dependency jurisdiction 

under section 300, subdivision (b)(1). (In re Destiny S. (2012) 

210 Cal.App.4th 999, 1003 [“[i]t is undisputed that a parent’s use 

of marijuana ‘without more,’ does not bring a minor within the 

jurisdiction of the dependency court”]; In re Alexis E. (2009) 

171 Cal.App.4th 438, 452 [“it is true that the mere use of 

marijuana by a parent will not support a finding of risk to 

minors”].) Here, however, substantial evidence supported the 

juvenile court’s finding Ayanna’s marijuana use constituted

substance abuse. Ayanna admitted to smoking marijuana 

regularly over the last five years (her entire adult life), and 

Yeshua stated Ayanna often smoked so much she could not 

function. Although Ayanna claimed she never cared for Loyalty 

while under the influence, that assertion was contradicted by

Ayanna’s arrest for driving under the influence while Loyalty 

was in the car and Ayanna’s positive drug test in December 2020 

on a day she was caring for Loyalty. Ayanna also gave 

and not managing to do what one should at work, home or school 

because of substance use. The presence of two or three of the 

11 specified criteria indicates a mild substance use disorder; four 

or five indicate a moderate substance use disorder; and six or 

more a severe substance use disorder.” (Ibid.) As we held in 

Christopher R., “We recognize the Drake M. formulation as a 

generally useful and workable definition of substance abuse for 

purposes of section 300, subdivision (b). But it is not a 

comprehensive, exclusive definition mandated by either the 

Legislature or the Supreme Court, and we are unwilling to accept 

[the] argument that only someone who has been diagnosed by a 

medical professional or who falls within one of the specific 

DSM-IV-TR [or DSM-5] categories can be found to be a current 

substance abuser.” (Id. at p. 1218.)
13

inconsistent explanations regarding the circumstances of her 

arrest, first stating she smoked a marijuana cigarette an hour 

before the arrest, then saying it was two hours earlier. In 

addition, she initially told a social worker another adult had been 

in the car with her during the arrest even though she had been 

alone with Loyalty. Ayanna insisted she had not smoked 

marijuana since late January, but her three positive tests in 

February and March 2021 support the inference she was not 

being truthful about her marijuana use. 

Moreover, the evidence in the record established that 

Ayanna did not comprehend the risks associated with driving 

while under the influence or caring for her child while 

intoxicated, nor did she take responsibility for her actions, 

stating she just “got caught up” at a sobriety checkpoint. Even 

when under Department scrutiny Ayanna failed to appear for 

testing, continued to test positive and chose to smoke marijuana 

on her birthday despite knowing it would delay unmonitored 

visits with Loyalty. The lack of insight into the effects of her 

marijuana use and apparent inability to curtail her use 

reasonably supported a finding of substance abuse.

Ayanna additionally argues there was insufficient evidence 

to establish her use of marijuana interfered with her ability to 

properly care for Loyalty. However, Ayanna acknowledges that, 

with respect to a child of “tender years” like Loyalty, who was 

under two years old at the time of the jurisdiction hearing, “‘the 

finding of substance abuse is prima facie evidence of the inability 

of a parent or guardian to provide regular care resulting in a 

substantial risk of harm.’” (Christopher R., supra, 

225 Cal.App.4th at p. 1219; accord, In re Kadence P., supra, 

241 Cal.App.4th at p. 1385.) Ayanna nonetheless contends she 
14

did not put Loyalty at risk of harm because she only smoked 

when Loyalty was asleep. Ayanna’s claim was contradicted by 

Yeshua, and the juvenile court’s assessment of which parent to 

believe is not for us to review. But even if Ayanna’s assertion 

were true, she presented no evidence a sober caregiver was with 

Loyalty while Ayanna was smoking marijuana outside in her car. 

At most Ayanna’s defense is that she did not expose Loyalty to 

second-hand smoke, not that she had ensured her baby was 

properly supervised. This evidence was a sufficient link between 

Ayanna’s marijuana abuse and the risk of harm to Loyalty to 

support the jurisdiction finding. (See Kadence P., at pp. 1384-

1385 [mother’s continuous substance abuse and attempts to 

conceal it placed infant daughter at substantial risk of harm]; 

Christopher R., at pp. 1219-1220 [father’s persistent drug use 

rendered him incapable of providing regular care for infant 

child].)4

3. Substantial Evidence Supports the Removal Order 

The evidence that Ayanna’s substance abuse exposed 

Loyalty to a substantial risk of serious physical harm supporting 

the court’s jurisdiction finding also supports the court’s 

disposition order. (See In re Nathan E., supra, 61 Cal.App.5th at 

p. 124 [“[t]his record provides substantial evidence to support 

both (1) the court’s jurisdictional finding by a preponderance of 

the evidence that, at the time of the jurisdictional hearing, the 

parents’ ongoing domestic violence issues created a substantial 

4 In light of our affirmance of the juvenile court’s finding of 

jurisdiction based on Ayanna’s substance abuse, we need not 

address Ayanna’s argument the finding of jurisdiction based on

her driving under the influence arrest was improper. (See In re 

Kadence P., supra, 241 Cal.App.4th at p. 1385, fn. 6.)
15

risk that the children would suffer physical harm . . . , and (2) the 

court’s finding by clear and convincing evidence that, at the time 

of the dispositional hearing, returning the children to mother’s 

custody posed a risk of substantial danger to them”].) 

Nevertheless, Ayanna contends removal was not necessary 

because she had “fully engaged in voluntary testing and services, 

and she did so both comprehensively and with great success.” 

Her argument is not supported by the record, which shows 

Ayanna did not enroll in a substance abuse program until three 

months after Loyalty had been removed from her care and did 

not test negative for marijuana until two weeks before the 

disposition hearing. In addition, despite having regularly used 

marijuana for six years, Ayanna had been engaged in substance 

abuse counseling only three weeks at the time of the hearing. In 

light of this evidence the juvenile court’s finding there was no 

reasonable means to protect Loyalty without removal was proper.

DISPOSITION 

The juvenile court’s findings and orders are affirmed.

PERLUSS, P. J.

We concur:

SEGAL, J. FEUER, J.