Filed 5/30/24 In re J.D. CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for 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 FIVE

In re J.D., et al., Persons Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law. B328713

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

E.D.

Defendant and Appellant.

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. 

19CCJP01722H-J)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Lucia J. Murillo, Judge Pro Tempore. Affirmed.

Emery El Habiby, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant E.D.

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, and Tracey Dodds, Principal Deputy 

County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

The juvenile court assumed dependency jurisdiction over 

minors Jan.D., Jo.D., and Jac.D. following an incident in which 

E.D. (Father) arrived home drunk with a self-inflicted gunshot 

wound, physically abused the minors, and threatened to kill 

them. We are asked to decide whether substantial evidence 

supports the juvenile court’s finding that returning the minors to 

Father’s custody at the six-month review hearing would create a 

substantial risk of detriment to their physical or emotional wellbeing.

I. BACKGROUND

This is the second appeal in these dependency proceedings

that commenced in juvenile court in June 2022.1 We previously 

affirmed the juvenile court’s disposition order in In re J.D. (Sept. 

15, 2023, B323583) [nonpub. opn.]). We draw on that opinion in 

summarizing the facts from the initial investigation through 

disposition. 

1 Earlier, the juvenile court sustained a different dependency 

petition alleging Father failed to seek timely mental health 

treatment for Jan.D. and Jac.D. Father was ordered to 

participate in drug and alcohol services, family preservation 

services, and individual counseling. The juvenile court 

terminated dependency jurisdiction about six months later, and 

this court dismissed as moot Father’s appeal from the juvenile 

court’s jurisdiction findings and disposition order. (In re G.D. 

(Aug. 16, 2022, B314503) [nonpub. opn.].)
3

A. Investigation, Assumption of Dependency 

Jurisdiction, and Disposition

Jan.D. was born in 2006, Jo.D. was born in 2008, and 

Jac.D. was born in 2009. Father was awarded sole legal and 

physical custody of the minors in 2019 after the juvenile court 

sustained a dependency petition alleging they were at risk based 

on V.M.’s (Mother’s) conduct.

The events that led to these proceedings occurred in June 

2022, when the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family 

Services (the Department) was notified of a disturbance at the 

family home. The Department was informed police responded to 

the home late one evening after receiving reports that Father was 

assaulting the minors. The minors ran outside when officers 

arrived and said Father had hit them. The officers saw Father 

inside the home with blood on his hand. Father attempted to 

close the door on the officers, but he was taken into custody 

without further incident. Father had a gunshot wound to his left 

hand, and officers discovered a bullet hole and traces of skin in 

his car. Officers did not observe any obvious physical injuries to 

the minors.2

Jan.D. told police that Jo.D. woke her up because Father 

was outside in his car and appeared intoxicated. Jan.D. 

approached Father with her younger siblings and Father “began 

to yell” at her. When he “abruptly” exited the car, Jan.D. ran 

inside and locked the door. She let Father inside, however, 

2 The police report noted there were cockroaches and rat 

feces throughout the kitchen and disturbing slogans written on 

the minors’ bedroom walls.
4

because she feared the situation “would escalate further” as 

Father “began to bang on the door.”

Jan.D. told officers that Father hit all three minors 

multiple times and said he would “kill [them] if [they] [did not] 

listen” to him. Jan.D. directed Jac.D. to have a neighbor call the 

police, and when the neighbor came to the family home to 

intervene, he and Father “got in a verbal altercation.” Jan.D. 

then directed Jo.D. to remove Father’s gun from his car (he 

“always keeps a gun inside the vehicle”) because she was afraid 

he “might use the gun against [the minors].” Police recovered 

this gun plus several others that Father kept in his bedroom. 

Jac.D. declined to provide a statement to officers because he was 

“used to this type of behavior.”

A Department social worker spoke with the minors the 

following day. Jan.D. expanded on her statements to police, 

explaining Father was drunk and told her he accidentally shot 

himself in the hand. Jan.D. tried to help him clean the wound, 

but he “refused” and “began to hit her and her siblings.” He told 

them, “you are the worst thing that ever happened to me. I have 

to do all this for you guys and you don’t do anything for me. I am 

going to kill you.” Jan.D. knew Father kept a loaded handgun in 

his car, so she and her siblings ran outside to hide it.3 Jan.D. 

said Father occasionally drinks, but he was never aggressive and 

had not previously abused her or her siblings. Jo.D. and Jac.D. 

both said Father drinks “a lot,” but similarly agreed he had never 

become aggressive before.

3

Jo.D. and Jac.D. corroborated Jan.D.’s account of what 

happened.
5

A Department social worker discussed the incident with the 

minors once again about three weeks later. All three of the 

minors stated Father pushed them out of his way after he exited 

the car, but Jan.D. and Jac.D. now denied that Father hit them. 

Jan.D. also denied Father said he was going to kill them. Jo.D. 

and Jac.D. now also suggested Father was not a heavy drinker.

Father told a Department social worker he was drunk the 

day of the incident. He “blacked out” and had no recollection of 

“anything after arriving home,” but he “was apologetic and took 

full responsibility for his actions despite not knowing exactly 

what had occurred.” Father said the minors are aware he keeps 

guns in safes in the home, but he maintained they “have never 

had access to the guns.” Father acknowledged alcohol was “a 

‘demon’ he needed to overcome” and explained he had “turn[ed] to 

alcohol to cope” with stress caused by work, his mother’s health 

problems, and fatherhood. More specifically, with respect to 

fatherhood, Father emphasized “he had been struggling with how 

to respond to his children regarding their mother’s actions and 

their emotions regarding not having her in their life.”

The juvenile court detained the minors from Father in July 

2022. As of August 2022, Father was visiting the minors at his 

sister’s home every weekend and speaking to them via video 

every day. He was participating in a substance abuse program, a 

parenting class, and individual therapy.

At a jurisdiction and disposition hearing in September 

2022, Father pled no contest to dependency petition allegations 

that the children were at substantial risk of suffering serious 

physical harm based on Father’s physical abuse, his history of 

substance abuse (including marijuana and alcohol), and his 

possession of a firearm. The Department asked the juvenile court 
6

to remove the minors from Father’s care and order monitored 

visitation. Father requested that the minors be released to his 

custody or that he be granted unmonitored visitation, including 

weekends and vacations. Counsel for the minors joined in 

Father’s requests, with the condition that the juvenile court 

should order unannounced visits by Department social workers 

and/or drug testing.

The juvenile court ordered the minors removed from 

Father’s custody, placed them with Father’s sister S.D. (Aunt), 

and authorized monitored day visits between Father and minors 

in Aunt’s home. Father was also allowed unmonitored visits in a 

neutral or public setting provided he did not drive the minors.4 

The juvenile court ordered Father to participate in a full drug 

and alcohol program, weekly drug and alcohol testing, a 12-step 

program with a court card and sponsor, parenting classes, and 

individual counseling. 

B. Reunification Period

Between the adjudication and disposition hearing and the 

six-month review hearing in April 2023, Father completed a 

parenting program, a chemical dependency outpatient program, 

and a chemical dependency counseling program. He attended 

Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, but he did not have a sponsor. 

He tested regularly through January 2023, at which point the 

Department reported his testing “ended” as scheduled. Although 

4 Although the juvenile court denied Father’s blanket 

request for unmonitored overnight and weekend visits, it 

indicated it would assess any requests to accompany the children 

on extended trips “on a case-by-case basis . . . depending on 

where the trip is and who else will be there.”
7

Father never tested positive for alcohol, he consistently tested 

positive for marijuana. Father told a Department social worker 

he used marijuana to sleep and manage shoulder pain.

Father visited the minors regularly, progressing from 

lightly monitored visits, to unmonitored visits in public or neutral 

locations, to unmonitored overnight visits. As we shall discuss, 

visits were positive and there were no concerns reported until 

March 2023. 

During the reunification period, Jac.D. showed “great 

improvement” while placed with Aunt and initially indicated he 

wanted to stay in her home until he finished high school. Jan.D. 

and Jo.D. initially did well in the placement, but Aunt notified

the Department shortly before the six-month review hearing that 

she could no longer care for them because they would not stop 

using marijuana. 

Around the end of March 2023, the Department received an 

anonymous report that Father was drinking, slurring his words, 

and yelling for Jan.D. (who was not at home). Around the same 

time, Jac.D. told a social worker he noticed a bottle of alcohol in 

his Father’s freezer and was “sure [Father] was drinking again,” 

though he did not observe Father to be under the influence of 

alcohol during visits. Jan.D. also saw alcohol in Father’s home. 

Aunt told a social worker Father admitted to her that he had 

been drinking. Aunt also reported “there were weekends when 

one of the children would decline to go to [Father’s] for concern of 

his drinking or just because they did not want to go.” Aunt’s 
8

daughter and the minors’ cousin, J.R., also suspected Father was 

drinking again.5 

Father denied he had resumed drinking, and a Department 

social worker found no sign of alcohol during an unannounced 

home visit. 

At the time of the six-month review hearing in April 2023, 

all three minors indicated they wanted to return home to Father. 

Both Jan.D. and Jo.D. were unhappy living with Aunt, and Jo.D. 

complained she “was called a snitch for telling [Father] that 

[Aunt] [was] aware of his drinking.” Jac.D. retained a strong 

bond with Aunt, but he wanted to return to Father’s home so long 

as Father was not drinking. 

C. Six-Month Review Hearing

The juvenile court held the six-month review hearing in 

April 2023. Father asked the court to return the minors to his 

custody. Minors’ counsel asked that Jan.D. and Jo.D. be returned 

to Father’s care and indicated Jac.D. was “willing to remain” with 

Aunt until the end of the school year. The Department’s position 

was that the court should keep the children in their placements 

and order three more months of reunification services. 

Father testified and maintained he had not had a drink 

since the June 2022 incident that gave rise to the dependency

proceedings. He claimed he continued to attend Alcoholics 

Anonymous meetings and individual therapy.6 He had “no idea” 

5

J.R. monitored some of Father’s visits with the minors, but 

the record does not indicate whether she lived with Aunt and the 

minors.

6 Father indicated these programs were relevant to a 

pending criminal matter, but he did not specify whether the 
9

why Aunt told a social worker he admitted to drinking. He also 

asserted Jan.D. and Jac.D. were lying about having seen alcohol 

in his home. Father opined they lied because Jan.D. “say[s] stuff 

out of anger”7and Jac.D. had found “a mother figure” in Aunt. 

Father further testified that the June 2022 incident was 

attributable to his lack of “skills to cope with” his father’s death 

and his mother’s health issues. Through the programs he 

completed and in which he was still participating, he had “gained 

the skills, tools on how to cope with [his] emotions . . . .” When 

asked to elaborate on the skills he learned, Father answered, 

“[l]ike that prayer I can’t remember right now. God give me the, 

the—I wish I can look it up. To recognize the things I can’t 

control and to cope with the things that I can . . . .” The juvenile 

court suggested “the prayer [he was] trying to recall [was] the 

Serenity Prayer that they recite in A.A. meetings,” and Father 

confirmed that it was. But Father could not remember it “word 

by word.” Father testified he did not obtain a sponsor in 

Alcoholics Anonymous because he did not “feel [he] need[ed] one 

because [he] ha[d] so many other things [he was] still doing to 

provide [the court] facts and proof that [he was] progressing.” In 

addition, Father testified his programs taught him to “try[ ] to 

bring patience, strength, wisdom; how to diffuse [sic] situations; 

how to talk to [his] children; how to get down to their level; how 

criminal matter related to the June 2022 incident or whether his 

participation in these programs was pursuant to a court order. 

7

Jan.D. did not testify, but her attorney did tell the court

that Jan.D. said her statement regarding Father’s drinking was 

made “in anger.” 
10

to speak to them and come back as an adult because [he is] their 

father; [and] how not to be catastrophic with them.” 

After the presentation of evidence, the juvenile court found 

Father had made substantial progress on his case plan but 

returning minors to Father’s care was unwarranted because 

there was a substantial risk it would be detrimental. The 

juvenile court reasoned Father “still ha[d] a way to go in his 

recovery” because, if his participation in Alcoholics Anonymous 

were “genuine,” “he would have been able to recite the Serenity 

Prayer which is recited at the start of every meeting.” Moreover, 

the juvenile court credited Jan.D. and Jac.D.’s statements 

regarding alcohol in Father’s home because they were “looking 

forward [to] going back to Father” and “all of a 

sudden . . . changed their minds.” The court did not believe the 

minors did this “arbitrarily” because “[t]hey are older children 

who understand the ramifications of their words.” 

The juvenile court retained jurisdiction over the minors and 

ordered additional reunification services for Father pending a 

status review hearing set to occur six months later. 

II. DISCUSSION

Father contends no substantial evidence supports the 

juvenile court’s finding that returning the minors to his care 

would be detrimental to them. Notwithstanding Father’s 

substantial completion of his court-ordered case plan, the juvenile 

court was entitled to credit (and did credit) reports by Aunt and 

two of the children that Father had resumed drinking. So 

credited, no additional evidence to corroborate Jan.D., Jac.D., and 

Aunt’s statements was required (see, e.g., In re Lana S. (2012) 

207 Cal.App.4th 94, 104), and the trial court had a sound basis 
11

for finding that giving Father custody of the minors posed too 

great a risk to their safety. 

At the six-month review hearing, the juvenile court “shall 

order the return of the child to the physical custody of their 

parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a 

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

their parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of 

detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional wellbeing of the child.” (Welf. & Inst. Code,8

§ 366.21, subd. (e)(1).) 

The Department bears the burden of proving risk of detriment. 

(§ 366.21, subd. (e)(1).)

In determining whether placing a minor with their parent 

would be detrimental, the juvenile court considers, among other 

things, “the social worker’s report and recommendations[,] . . . the 

efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent[,] . . . and 

the extent to which [the parent] availed themselves of services 

provided . . . .” (§ 366.21, subd. (e)(1).) 

A substantial risk of detriment does not “‘mean merely that 

the 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.’ [Citation.]” (In re E.D. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 960, 

965.) However, “[d]etriment can be shown many different ways” 

(A.H. v. Superior Court (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1050, 1059), and a 

parent’s compliance with his or her reunification plan does not 

preclude a detriment finding. (Constance K. v. Superior Court

(1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 689, 704 [holding, with respect to 18-

8 Undesignated statutory references that follow are to the 

Welfare and Institutions Code.
12

month hearing, that “[c]ompliance with the reunification plan is 

certainly a pertinent consideration,” but “it is not the sole concern 

before the dependency court judge”].) 

We review a juvenile court’s detriment finding for 

substantial evidence. (E.D., supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at 966.)

Father believes the juvenile court’s detriment finding is 

unsound because he complied with his case plan and maintained 

consistent, unproblematic visitation with the minors—who 

wanted to return to his care. Notwithstanding Father’s efforts to 

comply with court-ordered services, substantial evidence still 

supports the juvenile court’s determination that there remained a 

substantial risk of detriment to the minors. Both Jan.D. and 

Jac.D. told a social worker they saw alcohol in Father’s home and 

Aunt reported Father disclosed he was drinking again. And 

given Father’s history, this was a serious concern.

Father counters that these statements from multiple 

sources are negated by other evidence (or, more precisely, the 

lack thereof): the absence of any positive tests for alcohol use, no 

statements by the minors that they observed him under the 

influence, and no report from social workers who inspected his 

home that they observed alcohol. The juvenile court, however,

provided a compelling rationale for its decision to credit Jan.D. 

and Jac.D.’s statements regarding alcohol in Father’s home. 

Both were previously eager to return to Father’s care—indeed, 

they still wanted to return to Father’s care—and neither child 

had any apparent motive to lie. In addition, Father’s evidence 

that he did not resume drinking in March 2023 is just of snapshot 

quality, proving only that he was not drinking at specific points 
13

in time and in no way refuting the testimony the juvenile court 

credited.

9

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s order is affirmed. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

BAKER, Acting P. J.

We concur:

KIM, J. LEE, J.*

9 The record indicates Father’s negative tests for alcohol use 

continued to January 2023 but the statements the juvenile court 

relied on suggesting Father had resumed drinking were all made 

weeks later, in March 2023. The fact that the minors never saw 

Father under the influence of alcohol proves only that he was not 

drinking heavily just before or during visits. And the fact that a 

single home inspection did not reveal evidence that Father had 

resumed drinking is not especially probative; the juvenile court 

could reasonably conclude Father had alcohol in the home at 

other times or the social worker may not have discovered alcohol 

that was present at the time of the inspection.

*

Judge of the San Bernardino County Superior Court, 

assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of 

the California Constitution.