Filed 4/14/23 In re Yasmine D. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for 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 YASMINE D. et al., Persons

Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

_____________________________________

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND 

FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DARREN D. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

B318410

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. 21CCJP03652AB)

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, Hernan D. Vera, Judge. Affirmed.
2

Elizabeth C. Alexander, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant, Darren D.

Law Office of Linda J. Conrad and Linda J. Conrad, under 

appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant, G.I.

Dawyn R. Harrison, Interim County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, Aileen Wong, Deputy County Counsel 

for Plaintiff and Respondent.

 ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳

Darren D. (father) and Rochelle T. (mother) are parents of 

Yasmine D. The juvenile court sustained an allegation in a 

dependency petition brought on behalf of Yasmine pursuant to 

Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 300 that father failed to 

protect Yasmine, then only several months old, from the risks 

posed by mother’s substance abuse.

Father appeals, contending the juvenile court’s 

jurisdictional order sustaining the allegation is not supported by 

substantial evidence. Father asks that we reverse the 

jurisdictional order and the dispositional order based on it. 

Because we conclude that substantial evidence supports the 

juvenile court’s jurisdictional order, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

I. Earlier proceedings involving mother

We briefly describe earlier dependency proceedings 

involving mother insofar as they relate to the instant appeal.

1 All subsequent undesignated statutory references are to

the Welfare and Institutions Code.
3

A. Proceedings involving J.K. and Cassandra

In January 2016, the juvenile court sustained a dependency 

petition filed on behalf of two of mother’s children, J.K. and 

Cassandra I. The court determined that mother had physically 

abused J.K., had engaged in domestic violence with George I., 

Cassandra’s father, and had a history of marijuana abuse.

The court terminated jurisdiction over Cassandra in 

February 2017 with an order granting George sole physical 

custody of Cassandra. In July 2018, mother’s parental rights 

over J.K. were terminated.

B. Proceedings involving Cassandra

In August 2021, the Los Angeles County Department of 

Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a dependency petition 

on behalf of Cassandra alleging that George and mother engaged 

in physical altercations in front of Cassandra, that mother 

physically abused Cassandra, and that both George and mother 

abused marijuana. 

According to DCFS’s August 2021 detention report, George 

reported that mother had hit and punched Cassandra, had hit 

and bitten him, and had caused damage to his home. George 

further reported that mother, who was seven months pregnant at 

the time—with Yasmine, not George’s child—smoked marijuana.

DCFS’s detention report also described a July 2021 

interview with mother. Relevant here, mother acknowledged 

being seven months pregnant, that she used marijuana, and that 

she had done so as recently as a month earlier, but said that how 

often she used marijuana was her “personal business.” Mother 

denied smoking marijuana in the presence of Cassandra. Mother 

further informed DCFS that she was in a relationship with father 
4

but declined to give the social worker father’s contact 

information.

Mother tested positive for marijuana on July 17, 2021, the 

day after her interview with DCFS.

DCFS’s October 2021 jurisdiction/disposition report 

described further interviews with Cassandra and George. 

Cassandra said that mother used drugs, but Cassandra did not 

identify the type of drug. Cassandra had not seen mother use 

drugs, but had overheard mother mention drugs to mother’s 

friend. George also reported that mother smoked marijuana, and 

that “[s]he like[d] smoking . . . .” He said that “on different 

occasions, when mother has been in his home, he ha[d] asked 

mother to smoke outside the house,” but that she smoked inside 

anyway.

2

According to the same report, mother had an additional 

positive marijuana test on July 28, 2021.

II. Proceedings involving Yasmine

Meanwhile, on September 28, 2021, DCFS received a 

referral for Yasmine, then less than one month old, alleging she 

was the victim of general neglect based on the same allegations 

at issue in the pending dependency petition involving Cassandra.

A. Detention report

According to a DCFS detention report dated November 4, 

2021, mother had been uncooperative with DCFS’s efforts to meet 

Yasmine, born in September 2021. In late September 2021, the 

social worker assigned to Cassandra said that mother would not 

2 Based on the context of these reported statements, it 

appears that they refer to smoking marijuana.
5

give DCFS mother’s home address and would not allow DCFS to 

meet Yasmine. During a monitored visit with Cassandra, mother 

denied that the newborn she was carrying was Yasmine; she said 

it was her friend’s baby.

At a subsequent monitored visit with Cassandra on October 

6, 2021, DCFS informed mother about the open referral for 

Yasmine. Mother said that DCFS did not need to know anything 

about Yasmine. Mother refused to give DCFS her home address

and would not tell DCFS where Yasmine resided or the hospital 

where Yasmine was born. Mother also declined to bring Yasmine

to a DCFS office. Although mother provided DCFS with her 

phone number, it was not in service two days later. DCFS’s effort 

several days later to contact mother using a different phone 

number it received from Cassandra’s foster parent was also 

unsuccessful.

On October 19, 2021, a DCFS social worker went to the 

police department to file a missing person’s report for Yasmine. 

The police called mother, who answered. After speaking with 

police, mother agreed to allow DCFS to visit her home to meet 

Yasmine.

A DCFS social worker visited mother’s home later that day. 

The home, a one-bedroom apartment, was organized, 

appropriately furnished, and free from visible hazards. Mother 

was residing there with Yasmine and father. Yasmine’s crib was 

clean and the social worker observed plenty of clothing and 

diapers. The social worker did not observe any drugs or drug 

paraphernalia. The kitchen had ample food, the utilities worked, 

and there were no observable dangers in the home that would 

affect Yasmine.
6

Mother denied any abuse or neglect of Yasmine and said 

both she and father had significant support from their relatives. 

Mother explained that she had not wanted DCFS to meet 

Yasmine because of her concern that DCFS would remove 

Yasmine from her custody. 

Mother denied smoking marijuana regularly and reported 

smoking it “on occasion when she is out of the home with 

friends.” She also denied smoking marijuana in the home or 

when Yasmine was in her care. She had only smoked a small 

amount of marijuana once when she was pregnant due to her 

nausea, and agreed to drug test on demand.

Father also denied any abuse or neglect of Yasmine and 

reported that mother took good care of Yasmine. Father said he 

had no concern about mother using drugs, and that mother did

not smoke marijuana in the home or in Yasmine’s presence.

Father denied any substance use.

DCFS contacted father later that day to ask about his 

criminal history, including several arrests and charges for drug 

possession. At first, father said he was only arrested in 1999 for 

assault. After the social worker asked him to be forthcoming, 

father acknowledged an arrest in 2019 for possession of cocaine, 

but said he was later exonerated. He also denied any past or 

current substance use.

On October 21, 2021, father agreed to drug test the 

following day. However, father failed to appear for the drug test. 

On October 26, 2021, father told DCFS he was unable to take the 

drug test the week before because he was taking care of Yasmine, 

but remained willing to test. DCFS then informed him it would 

submit a referral for a drug test the next day.
7

Also on October 26, 2021, DCFS received a positive 

marijuana test result from mother’s drug test six days earlier.

Then, on October 27, 2021, father told DCFS he would not 

take a drug test unless a court ordered him to do so because he 

believed it violated his constitutional rights. DCFS informed him 

a drug test would assist with its investigation given his prior 

criminal history. Father said his criminal history report was 

incorrect, that his identity must have been stolen, and that he 

had not been arrested for possession or sale of drugs since 2010. 

When asked about arrests in 2016, 2017, and 2019 involving 

possession and sale of cocaine and phencyclidine, father recanted 

his earlier statement but said he had “ ‘paid [his] dues to 

society’ ” and should not be questioned about his criminal history.

That same day, DCFS received Yasmine’s medical records 

from the hospital where she was born.3 The records indicated 

that Yasmine was born healthy with negative toxicology results. 

The records also stated, however, that mother reported using 

marijuana once or twice weekly and had used marijuana as 

recently as three weeks before Yasmine was born. The records 

also stated, “Newborn affected by material use of other drugs of 

addiction,” but further details were not provided.

On October 28, 2021, the juvenile court denied DCFS’s 

request for a removal order.

Several days later, mother told DCFS that father was not 

Yasmine’s father and should not be involved in Yasmine’s 

dependency case. According to mother, father had been providing 

support for mother and Yasmine because he was a kind person.

3 Mother provided DCFS with information about the hospital 

where Yasmine was born during the earlier home visit.
8

DCFS contacted father the next day. Father said he was 

indeed Yasmine’s father and believed that mother was lying so 

that he would not be involved in the dependency proceedings. He 

also said he would cooperate with DCFS and any court orders 

because his priority was Yasmine’s well-being, and that he would 

care for Yasmine by himself if needed.

Based on its investigation, DCFS’s November 4, 2021

detention report recommended Yasmine be detained.

B. Dependency petition 

On November 12, 2021, DCFS filed a dependency petition 

pursuant to section 300 on behalf of Yasmine.

Counts a-1 and a-2 alleged that mother’s history of 

domestic violence with George and history of physical abuse of 

Cassandra and J.K. placed Yasmine at risk of serious physical 

harm. Based on those same allegations, counts b-1 and b-2

alleged that mother had failed to adequately protect Yasmine.

Count b-3 alleged that mother had a history of marijuana 

abuse, including a history leading to dependency jurisdiction over 

J.K. and Cassandra, and was a current abuser of marijuana,

rendering mother unable to provide regular care to Yasmine. 

Count b-3 further alleged that father “reasonably should have 

known” of “mother’s substance abuse and failed to take action.”

Count b-4 alleged that father had a criminal history of 

possession and sale of drugs and was a Registered Controlled 

Substance Offender, placing Yasmine at serious risk of physical 

harm.

Counts j-1, j-2, and j-3 mirrored counts a-1, a-2, and b-3, 

respectively, and alleged that because of mother’s abuse and 

neglect of J.K. and Cassandra, there was a substantial risk of 

abuse or neglect to Yasmine.
9

At a November 18, 2021 hearing, the juvenile court found 

father to be Yasmine’s presumed father. It further ordered that 

Yasmine be detained from parental custody, granted the parents 

monitored visits, and set the matter for an adjudication hearing.

C. Jurisdiction/disposition report

DCFS prepared a jurisdiction/disposition report dated 

January 26, 2022. 

The report described DCFS’s follow-up interview with 

mother on December 6, 2021. Mother met father five years 

earlier, and had been residing with him for about four months.4 

They were not married. Prior to Yasmine’s removal, she had 

been residing with mother and father, who together had been 

caring for Yasmine.

Regarding her marijuana use, mother said that marijuana 

was not a “heavy drug and she used it ‘once in a blue moon.’ ”

She used it when she was out with friends, two to four times a 

month; she last smoked it about two weeks earlier. Mother had 

been using marijuana since she was 19 years old and her 

consumption had not increased since then. Mother denied 

4 Although the DCFS report states that mother “reported 

that she has been residing with Mrs. Davis for about four 

months” (italics added), the reference to “Mrs.” appears to be an 

error. Immediately preceding that, the report states that 

“Mother reported that she resides with . . . father” at an 

apartment in Inglewood. Citing the same page of the DCFS 

report, respondent DCFS’s brief states that mother “reported she 

had been residing with father for approximately four months.” 

Father’s reply brief does not contend that DCFS’s assertion was 

erroneous.
10

George’s claim that she smoked marijuana “all the time,” 

including inside his home.

Mother did not believe her marijuana use affected her 

parenting. She said that there were “many people who smoke 

marijuana and take care of their children.” She also said she did 

not keep marijuana inside the home.

Father knew about her marijuana use, according to mother. 

She said father “ ‘let’s me do my own thing,’ ” and “is ‘ok with it. 

I’m grown, it’s ok, [I’m] not negligent with my duties.’ ” She 

emphasized that she used marijuana recreationally, and did not 

use it around Yasmine. 

According to the report, mother did not report to a drug test 

on December 22, 2021.

DCFS also spoke with father on December 27, 2021. 

Regarding the allegation that he failed to protect Yasmine from

mother’s marijuana abuse, father said, “ ‘I have to agree to 

disagree with that. I disagree that I should have taken measures 

or taken her out of the equation for the safety or wellbeing of my 

daughter. But I can understand it that I should have done 

something about the situation of mother smoking marijuana.’ ” 

Father “knew if anyone jeopardized his daughter’s safety, it 

would not be ok, but he did not know that mother using 

marijuana would lead to this”—he only thought “heavy drugs” 

would, but he now understood otherwise.

Father learned about mother’s marijuana use about one 

week after meeting her, about five years earlier. He 

acknowledged mother smoked marijuana while pregnant with 

Yasmine. He said he told mother he wasn’t “in agreement” with 

it and spoke to her about it on different occasions, and had even 

warned her he’d be resentful if Yasmine was born with any 
11

resulting health problems. Mother would then decrease her use. 

According to father, mother’s marijuana use varied from one to 

three times weekly, and up to twice daily. Sometimes she used it 

less. Father now agreed mother should stop smoking marijuana 

and complete any court-ordered services necessary to reunify 

with Yasmine.

According to DCFS’s report, father had a substantial 

criminal history, including several convictions for possession and 

sale of drugs.5 When asked about his criminal history and 

substance use, father said, “ ‘I’m not a user’ ” and Yasmine was 

“ ‘not in . . . jeopardy.’ ” Father acknowledged using marijuana 

recreationally when he was younger, but had not used it since 

1999; he also acknowledged using phencyclidine recreationally in 

1991, but not since then. He further explained that although he 

5 Father had (1) a May 1986 misdemeanor conviction for 

carrying a loaded firearm in public; (2) an October 1986 

misdemeanor conviction for possession of narcotics/controlled 

substance for sale; (3) an October 1987 felony conviction for 

possession/purchase of cocaine base for sale; (4) an April 1992 

felony conviction for possession of a controlled substance and 

loaded firearm; (5) an October 1997 felony conviction for 

possession of a controlled substance; (6) an February 1999 felony 

conviction for kidnapping; and (7) a May 2016 felony conviction 

for possession of phencyclidine for sale. Father also appears to 

have been convicted of a felony in October 1994, but the nature of 

the conviction is not clear from the information in the 

jurisdiction/disposition report. The jurisdiction/disposition report 

also indicates that father was convicted in December 2016 of 

violating Penal Code section 11378.5, which criminalizes 

possession “for sale [of] phencyclidine or any analog or any 

precursor,” but the nature of the conviction is not otherwise 

described.
12

had initially objected to DCFS’s request that he drug test, he was 

now willing to do so “to show to [the] court that he is doing what 

he needs to” do to reunite with Yasmine. Father also 

acknowledged having a criminal history but said “he has 

completed his time” and was exonerated of the most recent 

charges. 

Father tested negative for drugs on December 15 and 28, 

2021.

D. Jurisdiction hearing

The juvenile court held a jurisdiction hearing on January 

27, 2022, regarding the pending dependency petitions involving 

Cassandra and Yasmine. The court admitted the DCFS reports 

described above and heard testimony and argument from the 

parties.

Relevant here, mother testified that she used marijuana to 

treat an injury that arose from a car accident. She did not smoke 

it; she ate edible marijuana. Mother did not believe her drug use

posed a risk to Yasmine. She never informed DCFS that she 

used marijuana to treat an injury because she “didn’t think it 

was a big issue.”

Following argument of counsel, the court sustained count b3 involving mother’s marijuana abuse and father’s failure to 

protect Yasmine. The court cited evidence that mother used 

marijuana during her pregnancy, used marijuana up to twice a 

day, and that father was aware of mother’s marijuana use. The 

court also found that father understood the dangers posed by the 

drug during mother’s pregnancy and after, given father’s own 

history of drug use. Last, the court did “not find credible 

[father’s] statements that he tried to protect” Yasmine.
13

The court also sustained counts j-1 and j-2 based on 

mother’s history of domestic violence with George and prior 

physical abuse of J.K. and Cassandra. It dismissed the 

remaining counts.

E. Disposition hearing 

The court held a disposition hearing on February 4, 2022. 

It declared Yasmine a dependent, removed Yasmine from her 

parents, ordered DCFS to provide the parents with reunification 

services, and granted the parents monitored visitation.

Regarding father, the court again observed that father 

failed to protect Yasmine from mother’s substance abuse. 

Although the court was encouraged by father’s recent negative 

drug tests,6 it did not “think the risk has been sufficiently 

addressed to prevent removal today.”

Father timely appealed from the court’s jurisdictional and 

dispositional orders.

7

6 According to information submitted by DCFS to the 

juvenile court on February 3, 2022, father had negative drug test

results on January 11 and 25, 2022.

7 George also appealed. After examination of the record, his 

appointed counsel was unable to identify any arguable issues and 

so informed this court. George did not thereafter present any 

issues for the court’s consideration, and we dismissed his appeal 

on December 30, 2022. (See In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 

835, 838.) 

On February 3, 2022, DCFS filed a motion asking us to dismiss 

father’s appeal “as it concerns” Cassandra because father did not 

raise any claim of error regarding the orders affecting Cassandra. 
14

DISCUSSION

Father contends substantial evidence does not support the 

juvenile court’s jurisdictional order sustaining the allegation in 

count b-3 of the dependency petition that father failed to protect 

Yasmine from the risks posed by mother’s substance abuse. As a 

result, he contends the jurisdictional order and dispositional 

order based on it should be reversed, and that the dependency 

petition should be dismissed as to him entirely.

I. This case is justiciable

Respondent DCFS argues that father’s appeal is not 

justiciable. According to DCFS, because father challenges only 

one of several grounds for the juvenile court’s exercise of 

dependency jurisdiction over Yasmine, we need not consider 

whether the juvenile court’s decision sustaining the allegation 

involving father’s failure to protect Yasmine is supported by 

sufficient evidence. We disagree.

As DCFS points out, when “a dependency petition alleges 

multiple grounds for its assertion that a minor comes within the 

dependency court’s jurisdiction, a reviewing court can affirm the 

juvenile court’s finding of jurisdiction over the minor if any one of 

the statutory bases for jurisdiction that are enumerated in the

petition is supported by substantial evidence. In such a case, the 

reviewing court need not consider whether any or all of the other 

alleged statutory grounds for jurisdiction are supported by the 

evidence.” (In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 451; see 

also In re I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1492.) 

We deny the motion as moot. Father’s appeal does not concern 

any of the orders regarding Cassandra, who is not father’s child.
15

But father’s appeal does not challenge the juvenile court’s 

exercise of dependency jurisdiction over Yasmine. Father 

acknowledges that “the unchallenged findings as to the mother 

will continue to support dependency jurisdiction over Yasmine

pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (j).” Rather, 

father’s appeal challenges the juvenile court’s decision sustaining 

the allegation in count b-3 of the dependency petition that father 

failed to protect Yasmine from mother’s substance abuse, which 

was the basis for the court’s subsequent dispositional order

removing custody of Yasmine from father.

Our Supreme Court’s recent decision in In re D.P. (2023) 14

Cal.5th 266 (D.P.), supports our conclusion that father’s appeal is 

justiciable. There, the court considered whether a challenge to a 

juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding was moot where the 

juvenile court terminated its jurisdiction during the pendency of 

the parents’ appeal. (See id. at pp. 275–276.) D.P. observed that 

“a case is not moot where a court can provide the plaintiff with 

‘ “effect[ive] relief.” ’ [Citation.] In this context, relief is effective 

when it ‘can have a practical, tangible impact on the parties’ 

conduct or legal status.’ ” (Id. at 277.) D.P. concluded that the 

stigma associated with a juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding is 

not enough by itself to overcome mootness, and that such stigma 

“must be paired with some effect on the plaintiff’s legal status 

that is capable of being redressed by a favorable court decision. 

[Citation.] For example, a case is not moot where a jurisdictional 

finding affects parental custody rights [citation], curtails a 

parent’s contact with his or her child [citation], or ‘has resulted in 

[dispositional] orders which continue to adversely affect’ a parent 

[citation].” (Id. at pp. 277–278.) 
16

Here, the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding that father 

failed to protect Yasmine from the risks posed by mother’s 

substance abuse resulted in a dispositional order removing 

Yasmine from father’s custody.

8 Neither party has informed us 

that the dispositional order is no longer in effect or that father’s 

custody of Yasmine has been reinstated. Thus, we conclude 

father’s appeal remains justiciable. (See D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th 

at 283 [“where a jurisdictional finding ‘serves as the basis for 

dispositional orders that are also challenged on appeal’ [citation], 

the appeal is not moot”]; In re M.W. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1444, 

1452 [even though parent does not contest all jurisdictional 

findings, court will consider parent’s appeal where jurisdictional 

finding at issue “ ‘serves as the basis for dispositional orders that 

are also challenged on appeal’ ”].)

II. Applicable law and standard of review

Section 300, subdivision (b)(1), authorizes a juvenile court 

to exercise dependency jurisdiction over a child if the “child has 

8 DCFS contends father does not challenge the removal 

order. We believe this oversimplifies father’s appeal. True, 

father’s challenge to the dispositional order removing Yasmine

from his custody is based on his challenge to the jurisdictional 

order sustaining the portion of count b-3 alleging father failed to 

protect Yasmine. But, as noted, the juvenile court’s order 

removing Yasmine from father’s custody was based squarely on 

its earlier determination that father failed to protect Yasmine. 

Thus, reversal of the juvenile court’s jurisdictional order 

regarding father’s failure to protect Yasmine could result in 

effective relief for father, particularly because DCFS fails to show 

any other basis for the juvenile court’s order removing Yasmine 

from father’s custody.
17

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, subd. (b)(1)(A); see In re L.W. (2019) 

32 Cal.App.5th 840, 848 [describing elements].) “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 may be 

probative of current conditions” if there is reason to believe that 

the conduct will continue.’ ” (In re Christopher R. (2014) 225 

Cal.App.4th 1210, 1215–1216.) 

Additionally, our Legislature has declared that the purpose 

of our dependency statutes “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. . . . 

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, subd. (a).) That is especially so for young children; in 

cases involving children of “tender years,” a 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 

physical harm.” (In re Drake M. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 754, 767, 

disapproved on another ground in D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at 
18

p. 283; see also In re Christopher R., supra, 225 Cal.App.4th at 

p. 1216 [“Exercise of dependency court jurisdiction under section 

300, subdivision (b), is proper when a child is ‘of such tender 

years that the absence of adequate supervision and care poses an 

inherent risk to [his or her] physical health and safety.’ ”].)

“In a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support 

a jurisdictional finding, the issue is whether there is evidence, 

contradicted or uncontradicted, to support the finding. In making 

that determination, the reviewing court reviews the record in the 

light most favorable to the challenged order, resolving conflicts in 

the evidence in favor of that order, and giving the evidence 

reasonable inferences. Weighing evidence, assessing credibility, 

and resolving conflicts in evidence and in the inferences to be 

drawn from evidence are the domain of the trial court, not the 

reviewing court. Evidence from a single witness, even a party, 

can be sufficient to support the trial court’s findings.” (In re 

Alexis E., supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at pp. 450–451.)

III. Jurisdictional order 

Father contends substantial evidence does not support the 

juvenile court’s jurisdictional order regarding count b-3, and in 

particular, its determination that father’s failure to protect 

Yasmine from mother’s substance abuse caused a substantial risk 

of harm to Yasmine. Father argues that there was no defined 

risk of harm to Yasmine at the time of the jurisdictional hearing. 

We disagree.

We begin by noting the undisputed evidence of mother’s 

longstanding history of marijuana abuse. Mother, 31 years old at 

the time of Yasmine’s birth, acknowledged regularly using 

marijuana since she was 19 years old, including during her 

pregnancy with Yasmine. Mother tested positive for marijuana 
19

twice during her pregnancy with Yasmine and informed the 

hospital where Yasmine was born that she used marijuana one to 

two times weekly.

9 Mother also tested positive for marijuana the 

month after Yasmine was born and failed to appear for a test a 

few months later.

Moreover, mother persisted in her regular marijuana use

during her pregnancy with Yasmine, even though the juvenile 

court exercised dependency jurisdiction in 2016 over Cassandra

and J.K. due in part to mother’s marijuana abuse. Mother was 

also undeterred in her regular marijuana use by DCFS’s 

investigation—ongoing at the time of her pregnancy with 

Yasmine—of another dependency referral for Cassandra

involving, among other allegations, mother’s marijuana abuse.

And even though the dependency petition filed on behalf of 

Yasmine included an allegation regarding mother’s marijuana 

abuse—the third dependency petition that included an allegation 

involving mother’s marijuana abuse—at her December 2021 

interview with DCFS mother maintained that her marijuana 

abuse had not affected her parenting. (See In re Gabriel K.

9 Although the evidence regarding the frequency of mother’s 

use varied—she told the hospital where Yasmine was born in 

September 2021 that she used it once or twice weekly; she told 

DCFS in December 2021 that she used it two to four times 

monthly and had been using it since she was 19; and father 

reported to DCFS in December 2021 that she used it one to three 

times weekly, up to twice daily—it was clearly regular and 

longstanding. Also, we note that mother initially told DCFS in 

October 2021 that she used marijuana only once during her 

pregnancy to treat nausea, contrary to other evidence 

establishing her repeated use.
20

(2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 188, 197 [“One cannot correct a problem 

one fails to acknowledge.”].)

Finally, mother’s evasiveness during DCFS’s initial 

attempts to meet and assess Yasmine—for example, denying that 

the newborn she was carrying was Yasmine during a monitored 

visit with Cassandra, and refusing to let DCFS know where 

Yasmine resided—provided further support for the juvenile 

court’s conclusion that mother’s substance abuse posed a 

substantial risk to Yasmine. (See In re E.E. (2020) 49 

Cal.App.5th 195, 213–215 [citing mother’s evasive behavior

during agency’s attempt to investigate dependency referral as 

support for juvenile court’s conclusion that mother’s substance 

abuse posed a risk to children].) Mother only allowed DCFS to 

visit her residence to meet Yasmine after she was contacted by 

police.

In the face of this evidence, we accept the juvenile court’s 

determination, which neither mother nor father has appealed,

that mother’s substance abuse rendered her incapable of 

providing regular care and supervision of Yasmine. As noted, in 

cases involving a child of “tender years” like Yasmine, a “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 physical harm.” (See In re Drake M., supra,

211 Cal.App.4th at p. 767; see also In re Christopher R., supra, 

225 Cal.App.4th at p. 1216.)

Furthermore, we conclude that substantial evidence 

supported the juvenile court’s determination that father failed to 

protect Yasmine from the risk posed by mother’s substance 

abuse. Father does not dispute that he knew about mother’s 

regular marijuana use, including during her pregnancy with 
21

Yasmine. Nor does he dispute that he told DCFS during his 

interview in October 2021, more than a month after Yasmine was 

born, that he had no concerns about mother’s marijuana use. 

Indeed, when asked during her December 2021 interview with 

DCFS whether father knew about her marijuana use, mother 

explained he “ ‘let’s me do my own thing’ ” and “is ‘ok with it.’ ”

That father condoned mother’s substance abuse during her 

pregnancy with Yasmine and after Yasmine was born—instead 

of, for example, encouraging mother to cease her substance abuse 

and seek treatment—supported the juvenile court’s 

determination that father failed to protect Yasmine from the 

risks posed by mother’s substance abuse. (See In re J.C. (2014) 

233 Cal.App.4th 1, 6 [sustaining jurisdiction related to father 

because he “knew mother was taking drugs while she was 

pregnant and did nothing to protect his unborn child from her 

conduct”].) 

We acknowledge father later told DCFS during his 

interview in December 2021 that he was not “in agreement” with 

mother’s marijuana use during her pregnancy with Yasmine, and 

that mother would decrease her use after he spoke to her about 

it. But the juvenile court found that father’s statements 

regarding his efforts to protect Yasmine were not credible.10 As a 

reviewing court, we do not revisit that credibility determination. 

(See In re Alexis E., supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at pp. 450–451.) 

Also, the juvenile court’s credibility determination was supported 

10 Father emphasizes that at the jurisdictional hearing, 

DCFS’s counsel stated that DCFS conceded that father did as 

much as he could to protect Yasmine from mother’s substance 

abuse. Given the juvenile court’s credibility finding, we do not 

place much weight on the statement of DCFS’s counsel.
22

by the record. Father was not forthright with DCFS about his 

history of drug-related convictions or prior drug use. The trial 

court could infer from that evidence, as well as father’s initial 

lack of concern about mother’s marijuana abuse, that father’s 

later statement to DCFS that he had concerns about mother’s 

marijuana use while she was pregnant with Yasmine was not 

credible.

Father emphasizes that although he did not express 

concern about mother’s marijuana use during his interview with 

DCFS in October 2021, he had been under the misimpression 

that DCFS would only intervene if a parent was using “ ‘heavy 

drugs.’ ” He notes that by the time of his interview with DCFS in 

December 2021, he conceded he should have “done something 

‘about the situation of mother smoking marijuana,’ ” and was 

willing to accept services and cooperate with DCFS in order to 

regain custody of Yasmine. He also points to his four negative 

drug test results from December 2021 and January 2022. 

Although we commend father for this, it is not our role as a 

reviewing court to reweigh the evidence—we review the record in 

the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s order and resolve 

conflicts in the evidence in favor of that order. (See In re Alexis 

E., supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at pp. 450–451.) It was therefore the 

trial court’s province, not ours, to weigh this evidence against the 

other evidence in the record, including father’s initial lack of 

concern about the impact of mother’s substance abuse on 

Yasmine.

In his reply brief, father also argues the juvenile court 

“held father’s past drug history against him in finding count b-3 

true, finding he should ha[ve] been ‘sufficiently aware’ of the 

dangers of drug use during pregnancy and afterwards.” Father 
23

argues the juvenile court’s conclusion was “speculative” and 

further contends that “father’s past criminal history alone was 

not a basis for jurisdiction in count b-3.” We disagree that the 

juvenile court’s finding was speculative. Because father 

acknowledged having used marijuana recreationally in the past, 

the juvenile court reasonably found that father would have 

understood the impact of mother’s abuse of the drug. We also

disagree that the juvenile court sustained count b-3 based on 

father’s criminal history. As explained, the juvenile court cited 

father’s drug history—which included past marijuana use in 

addition to several convictions for possession and sale of drugs—

as a basis for its finding that father understood the risks posed by 

mother’s abuse of marijuana.

Last, father emphasizes that during DCFS’s home visit in 

October 2021, the home was organized, appropriately furnished, 

and free from visible hazards; that there were lots of clothing and 

diapers for Yasmine; and that both he and mother had caregiving 

support from their families. But such evidence does not detract 

from the substantial risk posed to Yasmine by mother’s ongoing 

substance abuse. In his December 2021 interview, only a month 

before the jurisdictional hearing, father confirmed that he and 

mother were still in a relationship, that mother “comes off and on 

to his home,” and that mother and he “were responsible for the 

care of” Yasmine. It therefore would have been reasonable for 

the juvenile court to infer that, notwithstanding the evidence 

cited by father, mother would sometimes be alone caring for 

Yasmine and that her substance abuse would pose a substantial 

risk of harm to Yasmine. (See In re Drake M., supra, 211 

Cal.App.4th at p. 767; see also In re Christopher R., supra, 225 

Cal.App.4th at p. 1216; § 300.2, subd. (a) [“The provision of a 
24

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.”].)

In sum, we conclude that substantial evidence supported 

the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding that father failed to 

protect Yasmine from the substantial risk of harm posed by 

mother’s substance abuse. (See § 300, subd. (b)(1)(A).)

IV. Dispositional order

Father’s only argument in support of his request that we 

reverse the dispositional order, including the removal order, is 

that it was premised on the allegedly faulty jurisdictional finding. 

Because we have found that substantial evidence supports that 

finding and father otherwise does not address the removal order, 

we reject father’s contention that the dispositional order must be 

reversed.
25

DISPOSITION

The January 27, 2022 jurisdictional order sustaining count 

b-3 of the dependency petition as to father and the February 4, 

2022 dispositional order are affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL 

REPORTS

EDMON, P. J.

We concur:

LAVIN, J.

HEIDEL, J.

*

*

 Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the 

Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California 

Constitution.