Filed 2/5/21 In re So.H. CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re So.H. et al., Persons

Coming Under the Juvenile 

Court Law.

 B306822

 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

L.P.,

Defendant and Appellant.

(Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 20CCJP02395A-C)

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, Lisa A. Brackelmanns, Juvenile Court Referee. 

Affirmed.

Elena S. Min, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Appellant.

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

Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Jane Kwon, Principal 

Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * * * * * * * * *
2

Mother L.P. has three daughters, So.H. (now nine), Sa.H. 

(nearly seven), and S.S. (now two). S.S. has a different father

than the older girls. Mother appeals the jurisdictional order 

declaring So.H. and Sa.H. dependents under Welfare and 

Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (a),

1 based on domestic 

violence perpetrated by S.S.’s father, A.S. She also challenges

the jurisdictional findings based on her substance abuse as to all 

three children, the dispositional order removing all three 

children, and the order terminating jurisdiction over the older 

two girls with a family law order granting custody to their father, 

D.H. We affirm. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This family came to the attention of the Los Angeles 

County Department of Children and Family Services

(Department) in April 2020, following a domestic violence 

incident between mother and A.S. According to the reporting 

party, father punched mother in the face, choked her, and bit her 

until she bled. Mother reported there were “[t]oo many [domestic 

violence incidents between her and A.S.] to count.” 

So.H. called 911 to report the incident. The reporting party

said the incident occurred away from home, and the children 

were not present but heard the fight over the phone. 

Mother told responding law enforcement officers she had 

taken a Lyft to meet father at a parking lot following his release 

from jail. According to the police report, father is a member of 

the PJ Crips gang, with a moniker “Nutcase.” Mother was 

offered but declined an emergency protective order. 

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code.
3

When a Department social worker interviewed So.H. and 

Sa.H., they said they did not witness the incident but they heard 

mother scream for help over the phone. They denied witnessing 

any other incidents of domestic violence. When asked about 

substance abuse, Sa.H. responded “not in front of us, mommy 

goes to the bathroom.” 

Mother admitted to ongoing domestic violence and 

harassment by A.S. She “tried to ‘get away’ ” from him, but he 

would show up at her work, attack her, stalk her on social media, 

and threatened they would be “together till death.” He had been 

in and out of jail over the course of their relationship, and she 

was not sure where he was staying. The Department was unable 

to locate A.S. for an interview. 

Mother denied she met A.S. at a parking lot. She told the 

social worker she was at a friend’s house, and someone had 

invited father to come over. She did not leave because she did not 

have transportation. She later changed her story and told the 

social worker that father prevented her from leaving by blocking 

the doorway. The children were not there; they were with 

maternal grandmother. Mother and A.S. called the children so 

he could speak with them. He became enraged after one of the 

children mentioned an upcoming birthday party for a friend, 

believing the child was referring to a male friend of mother’s. 

They began to argue about seeing other people, and A.S. punched 

mother in the jaw. She “tried defending herself” but he

overpowered her, pulled her down a flight of stairs, and dragged 

her outside. He choked her and knocked her dentures out of her 

mouth. Mother tried to push him away with a pole, but he kept 

coming after her, telling her “on Crip I’m going to kill you.” He 

eventually fled the scene. According to mother, she had an active 
4

restraining order against A.S. at the time of the attack and was 

participating in domestic violence services, although she was 

unable to provide any documentation to the social worker.

Mother denied using drugs. After the social worker 

confronted mother with a picture of her smoking marijuana

posted on her social media account, mother became upset, 

insisting marijuana is legal and that she should not be required 

to test. When the social worker cautioned about the importance 

of having proper supervision for the children while using, mother 

reported she is “not with her children every day and that they are 

in the care of maternal grandparents and great-grandmother.” 

She then implied that it was okay to smoke in front of the 

children but then said she only smokes outside. 

Mother tested positive for marijuana on April 22, 2020. 

According to D.H., the father of the So.H. and Sa.H., mother 

smoked marijuana in front of the children, and in the car with 

them. Mother was an “avid user” of marijuana while they were 

in a relationship. 

Maternal grandmother was concerned about domestic 

violence between mother and A.S. A.S. was not allowed at her 

home but would often show up at other family members’ houses 

looking for mother. 

Maternal great-grandmother reported that mother and the 

children had resided with her for the last two years. She 

considered seeking custody of the children to provide them with 

stability, as mother would move from place to place, and the 

children would often miss school, which was interfering with 

their learning. Mother would “go[] off with her friends” and was 

unsettled. 
5

D.H. reported that mother made false domestic violence 

allegations against him in 2011. His CLETS report confirmed

the charge had been dismissed. According to D.H., mother told 

him A.S. once held mother against her will at gunpoint. He also 

kidnapped and raped her. While A.S. was in jail in 2018, D.H. 

allowed mother and the children to reside with him because she 

was “not stable.” He believed A.S. to be dangerous and gang 

affiliated. He was concerned for his children because of the 

“ongoing abuse.” He wanted custody of his children if they were 

not in mother’s care. His home was clean and appropriate, and 

without any safety concerns. 

Mother told the Department she and the children lived 

with maternal great-grandmother. The home was cluttered, and 

it did not appear that anyone lived in the room mother claimed to 

occupy with the children. The room contained only a couch and

stacked boxes and containers; clothes were strewn everywhere. 

A family friend reported that mother had not lived in the home 

for some time. It was unclear where the children and mother 

were living. 

The family has a history of referrals to the Department. 

A July 2019 referral alleged that mother left the children in the 

care of maternal great-grandmother in November 2018, and was 

unstable, homeless, and suffering from substance abuse issues. 

She had not provided for the children since she left them in 

maternal great-grandmother’s care. The referral was closed after 

the Department was unable to locate the family. 

A May 2014 referral alleged that mother brought Sa.H. to 

the hospital with a fever and cough. Mother and Sa.H. were dirty 

and smelled badly. Mother had a flat affect, would not make eye 

contact, and was very guarded. 
6

There was also a 2010 referral for severe neglect, after 

mother’s infant son was found unresponsive at home and died 

soon after. The referral was evaluated out after it was reported 

there were no concerns of abuse or neglect. 

In 2017, A.S. was the subject of a referral for another child, 

based on domestic violence against the child’s mother, and 

threats to kill the child. The referral was closed as inconclusive. 

Mother has a criminal history including assault with a 

deadly weapon, battery on a school employee, obstruction, and 

resisting an executive officer. A.S. has an extensive criminal 

history including burglary, possession of a controlled substance, 

grand and petty theft, obstruction, vandalism, and robbery. He 

was also convicted of domestic violence against mother in October 

2019. 

Mother minimized the October 2019 domestic violence 

incident. She claimed A.S. did not hit her, but that she had to 

run and hide from him because he was threatening to kill her. 

Mother and A.S. had been in a relationship for five years 

and married for three. Mother told the Department she would 

give him another chance “if he got himself together.” She 

admitted A.S. “puts his hands on me all the time.” However, 

mother later recanted her admissions of ongoing abuse, claiming 

that the only time A.S. hit her was the referral incident. 

Mother filed for a restraining order on April 23, 2020, after

the Department threatened to detain the children. She also 

enrolled in a 52-week domestic violence program and parenting 

classes. However, mother permitted A.S. to retain access to her 

social media accounts and had not blocked or deleted him. 

At the May 4, 2020 detention hearing, So.H. and Sa.H. 

were detained from mother and released to their father, D.H.,
7

under the supervision of the Department. S.S. was detained and 

placed with maternal grandmother. D.H. was found to be the 

presumed father of the older children, and A.S., who was not 

present at the hearing and had not been located by the 

Department, was found to be an alleged father of the youngest 

child. 

The Department’s jurisdiction/disposition report noted that 

A.S.’s whereabouts remained unknown. The Department 

concluded that D.H. did not require any services and could 

appropriately parent his daughters. D.H. was nonoffending, and 

was doing an “excellent job taking care of the children and 

meeting their needs.” The Department recommended closing the 

case with a custody order as to So.H. and Sa.H. 

So.H. revealed that mother told her to lie about the referral 

incident, and to tell law enforcement and the Department that 

she was not present during the incident. In fact, she was home 

with mother and A.S. at the time of the incident. The incident 

occurred at a friend’s house, where they were living at the time. 

She did not see much, because she was in another room with her 

siblings, but she knew mother and A.S. were fighting, and called 

911. She was scared because her mother got hurt and had

bruises on her hand and forehead. 

So.H. also told the Department that mother “does not 

smoke that much” and that mother would tell her to leave the 

room when she was smoking. Mother drinks alcohol, and once 

got angry and hit the television with a bottle. 

At the contested jurisdictional hearing, mother testified 

that she enrolled in domestic violence classes after her children 

were detained and had attended seven sessions. She admitted 

her relationship with A.S. was “toxic.” Regarding the April 2020 
8

domestic violence incident, mother admitted her children were 

present. The family had been socializing at a friend’s house when 

father called mother a “bitch” and slapped her. Mother “took the 

fight” to another room away from the children. The rest of the 

“fighting and yelling” occurred away from the children. 

Mother told the children to lie about the incident because 

she was scared of losing them. She testified A.S. only became 

physical with her two times. However, he had emotionally 

abused her for a year, by lying and cheating. The children were 

not present for the other domestic violence incident. She planned 

to divorce A.S. and intended to abide by the restraining order and 

have no contact with him. 

Mother testified she smoked marijuana twice a day for pain 

and for her appetite. She does not have a medical 

recommendation for marijuana, because it is “legal.” Before it 

was legal, she had a doctor’s recommendation for medical 

marijuana. Mother usually smokes outside on the patio or in the

yard. The children are supervised by maternal grandmother, 

great-grandmother, maternal aunt, or D.H. when mother smokes. 

Mother said she does not get impaired to the point of being 

unable to care for the children. 

Mother first used marijuana after the death of her son in 

2010, when she was 18 or 19 years old. She started using on a 

daily basis when she was 23 or 24 years old, after Sa.H. was born, 

and had last used the day before the hearing because she was “so 

nervous.” 

The juvenile court sustained the section 300, 

subdivision (a) count, which alleged that “mother . . . and [A.S.] 

have a history of engaging in violent altercations in the children’s 

presence.” The petition described the referral incident, the time 
9

A.S. held mother at gunpoint, and A.S.’s conviction of spousal 

battery. The petition stated “[s]uch violent conduct on the part of 

[A.S.] and failure to protect by . . . mother, endangers the 

children’s physical health and safety and places [them] at risk of 

serious physical harm, damage, and danger.” 

The court dismissed identical domestic violence allegations 

under section 300, subdivision (b) as “duplicative” of the 

sustained subdivision (a) count. 

The court sustained other allegations under section 300, 

subdivision (b), that mother “has a history of substance abuse 

and is a current abuser of marijuana, which renders the mother 

incapable of providing regular care for the children.”

The children were removed from mother. Mother was 

ordered to receive reunification services for the youngest child, 

including domestic violence classes, random and on demand drug 

testing, parenting classes, individual counseling, and monitored 

visitation. The juvenile court terminated jurisdiction over So.H. 

and Sa.H. with a custody order granting D.H. physical and legal 

custody, and providing monitored visitation for mother. 

This timely appeal followed. 

DISCUSSION

1. Jurisdiction

Mother contends there is not substantial evidence to 

support the findings under section 300, subdivision (a) as to So.H. 

and Sa.H. She argues subdivision (a) applies only to 

nonaccidental harm inflicted by parents and guardians; she did 

not inflict nonaccidental harm on either child; and A.S. is not a 
10

parent or guardian of either child.

2

 We need not reach the merits 

of this argument, because the court’s findings under section 300, 

subdivision (b), based on mother’s substance abuse, support 

jurisdiction. (In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 451

[“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.”].) 

The evidence summarized above is substantial evidence 

mother abused marijuana and the children were at risk of harm 

in her care. (See In re Drake M. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 754, 767; 

In re Cole C. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 900, 916 [discussing 

substantial evidence standard of review].) The juvenile court 

“need not wait until a child is seriously abused or injured to 

assume jurisdiction and take the steps necessary to protect the 

child.” (In re R.V. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 837, 843.) 

This case is not like mother’s cited cases, In re Destiny S.

(2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 999 or In re Drake M., supra, where the 

evidence did not establish the children’s parents or guardians

2

“A child who comes within any of the following descriptions 

is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court which may adjudge 

that person to be a dependent child of the court: [¶] (a) The 

child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will 

suffer, serious physical harm inflicted nonaccidentally upon the 

child by the child’s parent or guardian.” (§ 300, subd. (a).) 
11

abused substances or were unable to care for their children. 

(In re Destiny S., at p. 1003; In re Drake M., supra, 

211 Cal.App.4th at p. 764.) 

2. Removal

Mother contends the Department did not meet its burden of 

proof for removal of the children, arguing she was able care for 

them and there were reasonable means to protect them without 

removal, such as family maintenance services. We are not 

persuaded. 

A child may not be removed from a parent or guardian 

unless there is clear and convincing evidence of “substantial 

danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or 

emotional well-being of the minor if the minor were returned 

home, and there are no reasonable means by which the minor’s 

physical health can be protected without removing the minor 

from the minor’s parent’s [or] guardian’s . . . physical custody.” 

(§ 361, subd. (c)(1).) A juvenile court’s removal order is reviewed 

under the substantial evidence standard of review. (In re 

Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 193; see also 

Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1011–1012.)

As to A.S.’s child, S.S., mother does not challenge the 

jurisdictional findings based on the severe domestic violence 

perpetrated by A.S. Mother had only recently started to address 

the violence in her relationship with A.S., minimized the severity 

of the abuse, and told her children to lie about it. This, coupled 

with her substance use, support the juvenile court’s conclusion 

that removal was necessary, and that there were no other 

reasonable means of protecting the children.

These same facts also support removal of the older 

children. Even if the court had not sustained the section 300, 
12

subdivision (a) allegations as to So.H. and Sa.H., the juvenile 

court was entitled to rely on the evidence of domestic violence 

when making its dispositional orders. (§ 358, subds. (a) & (b); In 

re Rodger H. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1174, 1183 [the juvenile court 

is not limited to the allegations of the sustained petition; rather, 

the court may consider all evidence on the question of the proper 

disposition].)

3. Termination of Jurisdiction

Mother also challenges the order termination jurisdiction 

over the older children, and denying her reunification services, 

arguing the children had lived with her all their lives, were 

bonded to their younger sister, and there was evidence D.H. was 

aware of the domestic violence in mother’s home but failed to 

protect his children. Alternatively, mother contends that even if 

the order terminating jurisdiction was justified, the court should 

have ordered that mother and father share legal custody of the 

children. 

The standard of review for juvenile court orders 

terminating jurisdiction is abuse of discretion. (In re 

Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318.) Similarly, “ ‘[t]he 

standard of appellate review of custody and visitation orders is 

the deferential abuse of discretion test.’ [Citation.] Under this 

test, we must uphold the trial court ‘ruling if it is correct on any 

basis, regardless of whether such basis was actually invoked.’ ”

(Montenegro v. Diaz (2001) 26 Cal.4th 249, 255.) A court exceeds 

the limits of legal discretion if its determination is arbitrary, 

capricious, or patently absurd. (Stephanie M., at p. 318.) The 
13

appropriate test is whether the court exceeded the bounds of 

reason. (Id. at pp. 318–319.) 

We see no abuse of discretion here. Substantial evidence 

supported a finding that father was an appropriate caregiver 

capable of meeting the needs of So.H. and Sa.H., and that mother 

was not then capable of safely caring for the children. Mother 

was awarded services to reunify with S.S., and she may petition 

the family court for a change of custody order as her 

circumstances improve. 

DISPOSITION

The orders are affirmed. 

GRIMES, J.

WE CONCUR:

BIGELOW, P. J. 

WILEY, J.