Filed 11/9/23 In re Calia Q. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 CALIA Q. et al., Persons

Coming Under the Juvenile Court 

Law.

 B325760

 (Los Angeles County Super.

 Ct. No. 22CCJP03918)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

LATRICIA Q.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, Lisa Brackelmanns, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.

Donna P. Chirco, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
2

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,

Assistant County Counsel, and David Michael Miller, Senior 

Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________

Latricia Q. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s

jurisdiction findings and disposition orders declaring 16-year-old 

Calia Q., 12-year-old Monica C., six-year-old Marco C., and fouryear-old Rene C. dependents of the court pursuant to Welfare and 

Institutions Code section 300, former subdivision (b)(1).1 Mother 

contends there is no substantial evidence to support the 

jurisdiction findings that her abuse of methamphetamine and 

marijuana placed the children at substantial risk of serious 

physical harm. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The Referral and Investigation

On August 31, 2022 the Los Angeles County Department of 

Children and Family Services (Department) received a referral 

stating Calia told the reporter that Marco C., Sr. (Father) locked

1 The Legislature amended Welfare and Institutions Code 

section 300, effective January 1, 2023, in part by revising

subdivision (b)(1) to specify in separate subparagraphs ways in 

which a child may come within the jurisdiction of the juvenile 

court due to the failure or inability of the child’s parent or 

guardian to adequately supervise or care for the child. Further 

statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
3

Calia out of their home.

2 When Calia asked Father to open the 

front door, he opened it and threw a glass bottle and plant at 

Calia, leaving a scratch on her chin. A social worker and 

investigating police officer interviewed Calia and did not observe 

a scratch or other evidence that she had been hit by a bottle. 

Calia later stated Father threw a glass bottle that shattered, and 

she “‘thought it hit [her] face but it didn’t.’” 

Father told the social worker that he was sitting outside 

the house drinking a beer when Calia walked outside the home. 

When Calia ignored Father’s attempts to get her attention, he

threw a glass bottle, which hit a small wall near his driveway. 

Neither the bottle nor shattered glass hit Calia. Father 

acknowledged it was inappropriate to throw the glass bottle. 

Father was angry at Calia because she and her friend had taken 

his vehicle without permission earlier that month. Calia also 

made four unauthorized purchases using Father’s credit card 

information. Father denied asking Calia to leave or locking her 

out of the home. He consented to an on-demand drug and alcohol 

test, and he tested negative for all substances. 

Mother reported Calia was at times disobedient and 

disrespectful, and she had stolen money and Father’s car. She 

also did not attend school regularly. Mother was not at home 

when the incident occurred. Father worked outside the home;

Mother stayed home to care for the children. Mother denied any 

drug use, although she admitted she had a history of prior 

substance abuse. During Mother’s pregnancy with Calia, Mother

2 Father is the biological father of Monica, Marco, and Rene. 

Calia’s biological father is Damero G., whose whereabouts were

unknown. Neither Father nor Damero is a party to this appeal.
4

tested positive for marijuana 15 times. In addition, Calia tested 

positive for marijuana shortly after her birth in January 2005. In 

June 2008 Mother was arrested for driving under the influence of 

alcohol (DUI) following an automobile accident in which no one 

was injured. Mother also was arrested in 2010 and 2022 for 

driving under the influence of alcohol.3 Because of Mother’s prior 

drug use, the social worker asked Mother to drug test. Mother 

consented, and on September 12, 2022 she tested positive for 

amphetamine, methamphetamine, and marijuana. 

On September 28, 2022 the social worker asked a school 

staff member about her interactions with Mother. The staff 

member reported she had no concerns. Mother was appropriate, 

and she did not appear to be under the influence of any drug 

when picking up the children from school.

B. The Dependency Petition and Detention Hearing 

On October 6, 2022 the Department filed a petition 

pursuant to section 300, former subdivision (b)(1). The petition 

alleged Mother had a history of substance abuse including 

methamphetamine, and she abused amphetamine, 

methamphetamine, and marijuana, which rendered her 

incapable of providing regular care and supervision of the 

children. Further, Marco and Rene were of such a young age as 

3 Mother’s criminal history includes the 2022 DUI arrest, as 

Mother acknowledges in her opening brief. But Mother denied in 

an interview with the dependency investigator that she had the

recent arrest for a DUI. Father reported Mother dealt with an 

outstanding warrant in 2022, which caused the DUI arrest to 

appear on her criminal record for that year. 
5

to require constant care and supervision. Father knew or 

reasonably should have known of Mother’s substance abuse, and

he failed to protect the children by allowing Mother to reside in 

the home and have unlimited access to the children. 

At the October 7, 2022 detention hearing, the juvenile court 

detained the children from Mother and placed them in Father’s 

home. The court granted Mother monitored visitation for a 

minimum of nine hours per week with Father allowed to monitor 

the visits. 

C. The Jurisdiction and Disposition Report

According to the November 17, 2022 jurisdiction and 

disposition report, Mother entered a residential treatment 

program on October 3, 2022. Mother told the dependency 

investigator that she had been sober for 18 days, and she did not 

think she continued to have a drug problem. Further, Mother

had four negative drug tests from October 20 to November 9, 

2022.

Mother reported she started using methamphetamine when 

she was 16 years old, and she had “‘been using off and on for 

23 years.’” Mother stated, “‘I’ve been sober when I’m pregnant. 

Then I started using after giving birth. I always look forward to 

giving birth so I can use again. But I wait a bit and then I 

started using maybe within 2 weeks of giving birth.’” Mother 

added, “‘I tried to use it as much as I could. I still sleep 5-6 

hours. The pregnancies and babies are sort of what make me 

use. . . . I have to keep the house up, take the children to school, 

cook, pick them up, feed, and help with homework because I 

didn’t work. . . . It was hard for me to get out of bed without 

using. I had to have a lot to stay energized.’” Mother also stated, 
6

“‘I use marijuana every day. It keeps me calm when I catch an 

attitude. I started smoking marijuana when I was 14.’” Mother

stored the drugs in her car, and she did not use drugs around the

children. Mother reported Father did not know of her 

methamphetamine use.

Father told the dependency investigator that he “‘was 

shocked’” when he saw Mother’s positive test results for

amphetamine and methamphetamine. Father stated, “‘I’ve 

known mom for about 16 years, since Calia was a baby. Since 

I’ve known her, she’s always been a night owl. I never had any 

idea that she was using or I would have found out when she going 

to prenatal care.’” Father added, “‘I know what people look like 

that use, but she didn’t look like that. . . . I would see her smoke 

marijuana. She would smoke outside. I would watch the kids, if 

she was under the influence. She would use it to relax.’” 

The dependency investigator also interviewed the children

and two maternal relatives. Calia refused to talk to the 

dependency investigator. Monica said, “‘My mom didn’t always 

cook. Sometimes she wouldn’t get out of bed. I asked for food 

and she told me how to make it. . . . Sometimes she was in bed 

all day. My mom would lay down. [Calia], me, or my dad would 

cook. My mom would be up at night and would clean sometimes. 

Sometimes she would sleep all day and night.’” Six-year-old 

Marco stated Mother “‘would lay down, sometimes she said she 

was sick. She wouldn’t get out of bed. My dad would help us 

take a shower. Monica would help.” Marco added, “‘My mom 

sometimes made eggs. But sometimes Calia or Monica or my dad 

made food.’” Four-year-old Rene was unable to provide any

meaningful statement because of her limited verbal ability. The 

maternal grandmother, Monique M., was not aware of Mother’s 
7

drug use, and she had no concerns regarding Mother’s care of the 

children. Likewise, maternal aunt Shanida J. did not have any 

concerns regarding Mother’s care of the children. 

D. The Jurisdiction and Disposition Hearing 

At the November 30, 2022 jurisdiction and disposition 

hearing, Mother submitted a November 29 progress report from 

her counselor at the residential treatment program stating

Mother was enrolled in a 90-day residential treatment program

and had been in the program for 59 days. Mother “remained 

compliant with . . . program requirements to date and has 

obtained a sponsor.” Mother “continue[d] to attend 4 groups per 

day 5 days per week totaling a minimum of 20 hours of group 

counseling weekly.” Mother submitted to weekly random drug 

testing and tested negative for drugs. Mother also was attending 

a 10-week parenting class.

Following arguments from the attorneys, the juvenile court 

sustained the allegations against Mother under section 300, 

former subdivision (b)(1), and dismissed the allegation that 

Father failed to protect the children. The court declared the 

children dependents of the court, removed them from Mother’s 

physical custody, and released them to Father. The court ordered 

Mother to participate in a drug and alcohol program with 

aftercare, random or on-demand weekly drug testing, a 12-step 

program with court card and sponsor, and individual counseling 

to address any case issues, including substance abuse, “effective 

communication with Calia,” and parenting. The court granted 

Mother monitored visits for a minimum of at least nine hours per 
8

week with the Department having discretion to liberalize 

visitation.

Mother timely appealed.

4

DISCUSSION

A. Governing Law and Standard of Review

The juvenile court may assume jurisdiction over a child 

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 or protect the child.” (§ 300, former 

subd. (b)(1).) “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 

4 In her appellant’s opening brief, Mother challenged the 

jurisdiction findings and the disposition orders removing the 

children from her physical custody and ordering monitored 

visitation. On June 27, 2023 the Department filed a motion for 

judicial notice of postjudgment evidence and a motion for partial 

dismissal of Mother’s appeal as moot. The Department argued

Mother’s appeal was partially moot because the juvenile court 

returned the children to Mother’s custody at the May 31, 2023 

six-month review hearing. (§ 366.21, subd. (e).) We granted the 

Department’s motions, partially dismissing Mother’s appeal as 

moot because Mother’s challenges to the November 30, 2022 

disposition orders “have been superseded by subsequent orders 

from the juvenile court dated May 31, 2023.” 
9

serious physical harm or illness.” (In re Cole L. (2021)

70 Cal.App.5th 591, 601 (Cole. L.); accord, In re S.F. (2023) 

91 Cal.App.5th 696, 712; 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 

[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.” (Cole L., supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at pp. 601-

602; accord, In re L.O. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 227, 238 [“‘Although 

there must be a present risk of harm to the minor, the juvenile 

court may consider past events to determine whether the child is 

presently in need of juvenile court protection.’”].) “A parent’s 

‘“[p]ast conduct may be probative of current conditions” if there is 

reason to believe that the conduct will continue.’” (Cole L., at 

p. 602; accord, In re S.F., supra, 91 Cal.App.5th at pp. 712-713.) 

We review the juvenile court’s jurisdiction findings for 

substantial evidence in light of the whole record. (In re I.C. 

(2018) 4 Cal.5th 869, 892; In re R.T., supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 633.) 

Substantial evidence is “evidence which is reasonable, credible, 

and of solid value.” (In re I.C., at p. 892; accord, Cole L., supra,

70 Cal.App.5th at p. 602.) “‘[W]e 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.’” (In re 

R.T., at p. 633; accord, In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773; Cole 

L., at p. 602 [“while substantial evidence may consist of 
10

inferences, any inferences must rest on the evidence; inferences 

based on speculation or conjecture cannot support a finding”].) 

“The appellant has the burden of showing there is no evidence of 

a sufficiently substantial nature to support the findings or 

orders.” (In re E.E. (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 195, 206; accord, In re 

D.B. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 320, 328-329.)

B. Substantial Evidence Supports the Jurisdiction Findings

Under Section 300, Former Subdivision (b)(1)

Mother contends there was no evidence her drug use 

resulted in neglectful conduct, arguing she took care of the 

children; the school and her family members did not have any 

concerns about her care of the children; and Father and the 

children were not aware of Mother’s methamphetamine use. 

Mother also asserts there was no substantial risk of harm to the 

children because at the time of the November 30, 2022 hearing, 

she was 60 days into a 90-day drug treatment program, was

participating in 20 hours of counseling each week, tested negative 

for drugs in weekly random drug tests, had a relapse plan, and 

visited with the children. Further, Mother was cooperative and 

motivated to ensure the children could remain home in Father’s 

care. 

Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s 

jurisdiction findings that Mother’s history of substance abuse and 

continued use of amphetamine, methamphetamine, and 

marijuana rendered her incapable of providing regular care and 

supervision of the children. Mother reported she started using

marijuana when she was 14 years old and methamphetamine 

when she was 16. Mother tested positive for marijuana 15 times 

while pregnant with Calia, and Calia tested positive for 
11

marijuana shortly after birth. Mother admitted she had been 

using methamphetamine “‘off and on for 23 years.’” Mother said 

she was sober when she was pregnant, but she “‘always look[ed]

forward to giving birth so [she] can use again.’” Mother added, “‘I 

tried to use it as much as I could. . . . It was hard for me to get 

out of bed without using. I had to have a lot to stay energized.’” 

Mother also admitted to daily use of marijuana, and then tested 

positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and marijuana on 

September 12, 2022. Notwithstanding this long, unresolved

history of substance abuse and multiple relapses, Mother 

believed after 18 days of sobriety in the residential drug 

treatment program that she no longer had a substance abuse 

problem.

Mother contends substance abuse, without more, is an 

insufficient ground to assert dependency jurisdiction. (In re L.W.

(2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 840, 849 (L.W.) [“[O]ur case law stands for 

the proposition that drug use or substance abuse, without more, 

is an insufficient ground to assert jurisdiction in dependency 

proceedings under section 300.”]; In re Rebecca C. (2014) 

228 Cal.App.4th 720, 727-728 [mother’s abuse of 

methamphetamine, amphetamine, and marijuana alone did not 

support jurisdiction finding]; In re Drake M. (2012) 

211 Cal.App.4th 754, 769 [jurisdiction finding based on medical 

marijuana usage “alone without any evidence that such usage 

has caused serious physical harm or illness or places a child at 

substantial risk of incurring serious physical harm or illness”

must be reversed], disapproved on other grounds in In re D.P.
12

(2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 282-283.)

5 But unlike Rebecca C. and 

Drake M., here the juvenile court did not assume jurisdiction over 

the children because of Mother’s substance abuse alone.

L.W. is on point. There, the mother challenged the 

jurisdiction findings that her abuse of cocaine and alcohol placed 

her child at substantial risk of physical harm. (L.W., supra, 

32 Cal.App.5th at pp. 845, 848.) The Court of Appeal noted, “It is 

undisputed there was no evidence of and no specific finding of 

past harm to L.W. as result of Mother’s substance abuse. L.W. 

stated she never saw any drugs or paraphernalia at home, never 

saw Mother abuse drugs and felt safe living with her Mother. 

She was well fed, groomed, and regularly attended school. All 

percipient witnesses and family members agreed Mother was a 

good parent to L.W. and all denied having concerns about 

Mother’s abilities as a mother.” Nevertheless, the court found 

jurisdiction was warranted because a year prior to the referral,

Mother was arrested twice for driving under the influence of 

alcohol and was convicted of reckless driving for the more recent 

5 Mother also relies on Jennifer A. v. Superior Court (2004) 

117 Cal.App.4th 1322, but that case does not involve a challenge 

to the jurisdiction findings. In Jennifer A., the court held there 

was no substantial evidence to support the finding at the 

section 366.22 hearing that returning the children to the 

mother’s physical custody would be detrimental to them. (Id. at 

p. 1326.) The court found the mother was in substantial 

compliance with her reunification plan notwithstanding her two 

positive tests for alcohol and marijuana and nine missed drug 

tests, and there was no “testimony linking Mother’s marijuana 

and alcohol use to her parenting judgment or skills.” (Id. at 

p. 1346.)
13

arrest. (Id. at p. 850.) The court explained, “That there were two 

arrests and at least one conviction within a year of the referral 

shows Mother’s substance abuse is now spilling over into areas 

that will pose a substantial risk of physical harm to L.W.” (Ibid.) 

Similar to the mother in L.W., Mother denies her substance 

abuse affected her ability to supervise and care for the children. 

Mother relies on statements by Monica and Marco in their 

September 1, 2022 interviews for the detention report in which 

they said Mother cooked food for the children, took care of them, 

watched them when they were home, and took them to doctors’

appointments. Monica and Marco also denied seeing Mother

smoke or Mother being “unable to wake up” or “acting weird.”

However, in their subsequent statements to the dependency 

investigator on October 20, Monica and Marco indicated Mother 

was unable to provide regular care for the children. Monica

reported Mother sometimes “was in bed all day” and at times 

“‘would sleep all day and night.’” Marco likewise reported that 

Mother would say she was sick and not get out of bed all day. 

Marco added that Father and Monica would help him take a 

shower when Mother was in bed. Monica and Marco also stated

that Father, Calia, or Monica would cook when Mother did not. 

We commend Mother for her participation in a substance 

abuse program starting in October 2022. But given her history of 

stopping her methamphetamine use and then relapsing, at the 

time of the jurisdiction and disposition hearing the children were 

at substantial risk of physical harm if Mother again relapsed. 

Further, six-year-old Marco and four-year-old Rene were 

especially in need of parental care and supervision given their 
14

young ages.6 Mother’s minimization of her neglectful conduct 

and failure to acknowledge she had a substance abuse problem 

support the juvenile court’s finding Mother’s substance abuse 

created a substantial risk of harm to the children. (In re A.F. 

(2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 283, 293 [“In light of mother’s failure to 

recognize the risks to which she was exposing the minor, there 

was no reason to believe the conditions would not persist should 

the minor remain in her home.”]; In re Gabriel K. (2012) 

203 Cal.App.4th 188, 197 [“One cannot correct a problem one fails 

to acknowledge.”]; In re Esmeralda B. (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 

1036, 1044 [“[D]enial is a factor often relevant to determining 

whether persons are likely to modify their behavior in the future 

without court supervision.”].)

6 In In re Christopher R. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1219, 

we applied the presumption that for children six years old or 

younger, “‘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.’” (Accord, In re K.B. 

(2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 593, 603 [“When a child is of tender age, a 

parent’s substance abuse can be prima facie evidence of a risk of 

serious physical harm or illness.”]; In re Drake M., supra, 

211 Cal.App.4th at p. 767.) Because the validity of the tender 

years’ presumption is before the Supreme Court in In re N.R.

(April 29, 2022, B312001) [nonpub. opn.], review granted August 

24, 2022, S274943, we do not rely on the presumption to find 

jurisdiction appropriate here.
15

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s jurisdiction findings are affirmed.

FEUER, J.

We concur:

SEGAL, Acting P. J.

MARTINEZ, J.