Filed 8/28/14 In re C.R. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 C.R. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. B253325

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
CRISTOBAL R.,

Defendant and Appellant. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. DK01427)

Appeal from orders of the Superior Cour t of Los Angeles County. Patricia S. Spear, Judge. Affirmed. Eva E. Chick, under appointment by th e Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. John F. Krattli, County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, and Sarah Vesecky, Deput y County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * * * * *2 Father Cristobal R. appeals from the juve nile court’s orders at the December 2013 jurisdiction and disposition hear ing declaring his two minor s ons, Ch.R. and Ca.R., to be dependents pursuant to Welfare and Institu tions Code section 300, subdivision (b) 1 and removing them from his custody. Father co ntends there is no substantial, credible evidence supporting either order. We ar e not persuaded and therefore affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCED URAL BACKGROUND On September 1, 2013, two officers from the Los Angeles Police Department responded to father’s apartmen t building, pursuant to a disp atch call that the apartment manager for the building had reported that father assaulted him. During their initial visit, the officers spoke with the apar tment manager (Emilio Z.) but father could not be located on the premises. Emilio Z. ex plained he had asked father to turn down his music because other residents had complained, and father p unched him twice on the side of his head. Emilio Z. also reported that residents of th e building believed father sold narcotics from his apartment. The officers left and then re turned to the building a couple of hours later in response to a second disp atch call, reporting father had committed another assault or made threats, and was back in his apartment.
The officers returned to the apartment building and sp oke again with Emilio Z. They also spoke with Omar Z. who reported he had confronted father about his battery on Emilio Z. earlier in the day and an altercati on ensued. Emilio Z. and Omar Z. directed the officers to apartment 964. As they approached the apartment, father was at the door and appeared to be leaving. When he saw the officers approaching, he stepped back
inside and closed the metal screen door. He re fused to come outside and told the officers “I am not opening the door for the police.” Bo th Ch.R. (age 8) and Ca.R. (age 4), were standing next to father, “crying hysterically.” The officers made several attempts to pers uade father to step outside peaceably. Father finally complied and came out with hi s two boys and the family dog. The police

1 All further undesignated section refere nces are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.3 officers immediately detained father and ad vised he was being detained in connection with their investigation of the alleged battery complaint. A young woman, who told the officers her name was Ebony J., was also in th e apartment. Father told her to take the dog back inside. She did so, and also opened the front door to the apartment and allowed
the officers to come inside. Ebony J. told the officers she lived in the apartment w ith father, and that she was concerned for the safety of the boys as there were narcotics and a gun inside the apartment. She took a ja r from a lower kitchen cabinet containing a green leafy substance that appeared to be marijuana and handed it to the officers. The officers searched the apartment and found a second larg e jar of what appeared to be marijuana (also from inside a lower kitchen cabinet), a pr escription pill bottle with the patient name of “Kevin Douglas,” two baggies containing a crystal-like substance that appeared to methamphetamine, a pump ac tion shotgun in a black ca se (from behind the bedroom door), several shotgun rounds a nd a loaded magazine, two box es of handgun ammunition, two digital scales, and a black baton.
Ch.R. and Ca.R. are fathe r’s children with his former girlfriend, Lisa B. Following a telephone call by Eb ony J., Lisa B. came to th e apartment and picked up the boys. Father was taken to th e police station to be booked. Father was arrested on a charge of misd emeanor child endangerment. (Pen. Code, § 273a.) The arresting officers recommended ad ditional charges be filed against father for battery, felon in possession of a firearm, and several drug possession charges. The police officers also referred the matter to the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services. A Department social worker interviewed Li sa B., the children’s mother, as well as Ch.R. and Ca.R., at mother’s home on September 10, 2013. Mother explained she does not know who Ebony J. is, but felt she was helpful in making sure mother knew to come pick up the boys and ensuring they were safe. Mother expl ained the boys lived with her but there was a family court order, in effe ct since December 20 12, allowing father visitation with the boys on the first, third and fifth weekends of each month. Mother said4 she was distressed by the events of September 1 and had gone back to family court to obtain a temporary emergency order which prec luded any visitation w ith father pending the juvenile court hearing.
Mother told the social wo rker she believed that after father was released from custody, he was arrested again for assaulting or threatening Ebony J. Father had called mother after his release and was yelling an d threatening her over the phone, and she could hear him yelling at another woman in the background who she believed to be Ebony J. The social worker completed an in mate locator search which indicated father was arrested on September 1, released on September 5, was re-arrested approximately five hours later for making criminal threats, and then was released again on September 10, 2013.
Mother denied father ever physically hit her, but she sa id he did throw things and yelled a lot. Mother said she had no idea wh at was going on at father’s house, but she knew him to have a long hi story of drug use, arrest s and violent behavior. Both of the boys denied any abuse by fa ther or mother and appeared “clean, healthy and well-groomed.” The younger boy, Ca.R., did not appear to understand what drugs were. His responses to the social wo rker were somewhat incoherent, but he did appear to confirm seeing “a gun in daddy’s bag.” Ch.R., the older boy, denied ever seeing any guns or drugs, and said he liked visiting his dad’s apartment on the weekends, and missed his dog that lived there.
When father was interviewe d by the social worker on September 17, he reported the district attorney was not going to be filing any charge s against him. As for the battery, he admitted “I socked him,” but claimed it was self-def ense after he got into an argument with the victim over thre ats to turn off the electricity to his apartment. As for the gun and drugs, father said the police searched the “wro ng apartment.” He said he lived at apartment 964 and that is where the police found him and arrested him, but they apparently searched 968, as reflected in thei r reports. Father denied owning or having any firearms or illegal drugs in his home, and claimed Ebony J. “found the apartment building keys on the ground” and let the polic e into apartment 968, instead of 964 where5 he actually lived. Father said Ebony J. was a girl he had known onl y briefly, and she had stayed at his apartment a couple of days but did not live there.
Father admitted he used to be addicted to crack cocaine and that he has a long history of drug-related criminal offenses. But, he said he does not currently use illegal drugs and agreed to drug testing. Father al so explained he was diagnosed with bipolar disorder but is not currently on any medication or receiving any mental health treatment. The Department filed a petition pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b). The Department alleged father had created a “detrimental and endangering home environment” for the boys by allowing illicit drugs, a shotgu n and ammunition to be in the home, within easy access of both children, t hus placing them at substantial risk of harm. The Department also alleged, in a se parate count (paragraph b-2), that father suffered from mental and emotional problems, including bipolar disorder, which rendered father incapable of providi ng proper care and supervision of the boys. At the detention hearing on September 20, 2013, the juvenile court found mother was nonoffending, the Indian Child Welfare Act did not apply, and father was the presumed father. The court fu rther found a prima facie case to detain both Ch.R. and Ca.R. pursuant to section 30 0, subdivision (b), and to remove the boys from father’s custody. The boys were released to moth er. Father was allowed monitored visitation twice weekly. In the jurisdiction and disposition re port, Dana Wilson, the dependency investigator (DI), reported that father’s mon itored visitation with th e boys had gone well since the detention hearing. Both father and mother were cooperative with the Department. But, DI Wilson stated that father “does not seem to be forthcoming regarding the illegal activity in his home.” Father reported he filed an administra tive complaint with th e Los Angeles Police Department regarding his fals e arrest on September 1, 2013. Father also provided DI Wilson with paperwork, incl uding a letter from the district attorney declining to file a case against him for the September 1 incident , a mental health assessment form dated September 26, 2013, describing father as presen tly stable and not in need of medication,6 and a certificate of completion from the Los An geles Transitional Center for a drug and alcohol program. Father expl ained he had been sober since 2007 when he completed the drug rehabilitation program. Father said he did smoke medical marijuana pursuant to a valid prescription, but denied he sold or took any illicit drugs . He again denied owning any firearms.
Father also said he had enrolled volunt arily in a parenting class and individual counseling. Father believes he is a good parent, a nd he thinks mother is also a good parent who takes good care of the boys. Mother said she was extremely worried ab out the situation, and just wanted her
children to be safe. She said she believed father normally to ok good care of the children when they visited, but she did not know ev erything about “his personal life.” Mother said father has anger management issues and the “situation scar e[s] her.” Mother
believes the children are “ver y attached” to father. DI Wilson spoke to the depu ty district attorney rega rding the criminal charges filed against father, who advised that beca use the police officers had not obtained a search warrant for the apartment, it was de termined the illegal dr ugs and shotgun would
not be admissible and therefore the charges had to be dismissed.
In a last minute information form filed with the court, the Department reported
that father had called the social worker to express his “dissatisfaction” with the jurisdiction and disposition report. Father reiterated his concern that no one had investigated the fact that police identified two different addresses as his apartment, including 9681⁄2, which does not even exist as an apartment address at his building. Father stated he never put his boys in danger and would neve r do so and just wanted his boys back. Father filed written objections to the hearsay statements contained in the Department’s reports. The combined jurisdiction and dispos ition hearing proceede d on December 12, 2013. At the beginning of the hearing, th e court admitted the Depa rtment reports, which7 included, among other documents, copies of the arrest report for the September 1 incident, and the property report related to the items recovered and taken into evidence.
Father testified. He stated he lived in apartment 964, no t 968 or 9681⁄2, and unequivocally testified he was in apartment 964 when the police officers arrived and that
was the location where he was arrested. Father said he initially refused to come out to speak with the officers because his boys were in the apartment. He said he assumed the officers were there because of the punching incident, and he was contacting mother so she could pick up the boys. Father said they were “already freaking out” because the officers had been “banging and yelling” so he wanted to make sure mother got them away from the situation.
Father said he did not see the officers en ter his apartment, or see what apartment they went into, because as soon as he went outside, the police handcuffed him and placed him in their patrol car. He said a mother and son live in apartment 968, and he does not have keys or access to that apartment. Fa ther verified copies of various documents identifying his residential address as apar tment 964, including a cable bill, his car registration, a Medi-Cal document, his re ntal agreement, and a notice from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services. Th e documents were admitted as evidence, along with several photographs fa ther produced showing the front entrance gates at his apartment building. Father admitted he had been diagnosed in prison in 1992 as suffering from bipolar disorder, but testified he had not been on medication for years and had recently been
assessed as stable and not in need of medication. Father al so testified he did not own any guns, never let his boys have access to firearms , and never used drugs around them. Following argument by a ll counsel, the court dismissed the paragraph b-2 allegation (father’s mental health/failure to supe rvise) in the interests of justice. Finding a preponderance of evidence supported the de termination that the shotgun and illegal drugs were recovered from father’s residence, the court sustained these allegations: “On 09/03/2013 and on prior occasions, [father] crea ted a detrimental and endangering home
environment for the children in that methamphetamine, marijuana, a firearm and8 ammunition were found in the children’s home , within access of the children. Such a detrimental and endangering home environment established for the ch ildren by the father endangers the children’s physical health and safety, creates a detrimental home environment and places the childre n at risk of physical harm , damage and danger.”
The court further found that clear and convincing evidence supported removal of Ch.R. and Ca.R. from father’s custody. Th e boys were placed with mother, who was nonoffending and willing to submit to the c ourt’s jurisdiction. The Department was ordered to provide mother w ith assistance, including tr ansportation assistance with respect to the monitored visitation for father and counseling for the children. Father was
ordered to have monitored visitation with a Departme nt-approved monitor, and the Department was granted discretion to liberaliz e visitation. Father was also ordered to complete anger management and parenting cour ses, as well as individual counseling. The Department was to inves tigate whether the programs fa ther had voluntarily initiated were Department-approved programs. The cour t ordered, with father’s express consent on the record, that the social worker could ma ke unannounced visits at father’s residence to determine whether any drugs or guns were in the home. This appeal by father followed.
DISCUSSION
1. The Jurisdiction Order
Father contends there is insufficient ev idence supporting the court’s assertion of jurisdiction over his two minor sons. “The sta ndard of proof at the jurisdictional stage of a dependency proceeding is a preponderance of the eviden ce, and we will affirm the court’s findings if they are supp orted by substantial evidence.” ( In re Mariah T . (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 428, 438; accord, In re I.J . (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773 [“ ‘ “We do not reweigh the evidence or exercise independent judgment, but merely determine if there are sufficient facts to support the findi ngs of the trial court.” ’ ”]; and In re Heather A . (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 193.) The record supp orts the juvenile court’s assertion of jurisdiction pursuant to sec tion 300, subdivision (b).9 Section 300, subdivision (b)(1) allows a court to assert depe ndency jurisdiction over a child who “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 his or her parent or guardian to adequately supervise or prot ect the child.” As th e Supreme Court recently explained, “section 300 does not require that a child actually be abused or neglected before the juvenile court can a ssume jurisdiction. The subdivisions at issue here require only a ‘substantial risk’ that the child will be abused or neglected. The legislatively declared purpose of these provisions ‘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, protecti on, and physical and emotional well-being of children who are at risk of that harm .’ [Citation.]” ( In re I.J ., supra , 56 Cal.4th at p. 773.) Creating a home environment in which a fou r-year-old and an ei ght-year-old have ready access to a loaded shotgun, as well as illegal drugs, falls well within the purview of section 300, subdivision (b). Because of the conditions in father’s home, both boys were placed at risk of serious harm, including, but not limited to, the possible misuse of a firearm or the ingestion of illicit drugs. ( In re Rocco M . (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 814, 825- 826 [juvenile court entitled to in fer that child 11 years of age is subjected to substantial risk of harm when placed in a home e nvironment allowing ac cess to drugs].) Father primarily contends there was no cr edible evidence the gun, ammunition and illegal drugs were found in his residence beca use the police reported they were found in apartment number 968 or 9681⁄2, not 964 where he lived, including the consent form signed by Ebony J. to search the apartment, and one page of the narrative portion of the arrest report. But, the first page of the arre st report, the property report and the receipt for property taken into custody form all identify apartment 964 as the location of the arrest and the apartment in which the items were recovered by the officers . The different addresses in the police reports are immaterial, in view of the undisputed facts, which are
these: The evidence showed the manager called police to report father had battered him; police responded; father initially refused to op en the door, then did so, and was arrested10 and taken into custody. In addition to the children, a woman named Ebony J. was in the apartment, and the children were hysterical. Ebony J. permitte d the officers to enter and signed a consent to search. She also told the police that father was a drug dealer, and the police found the contraband. The district a ttorney declined to prosecute only because father did not consent to the search, and there was no search warrant. It is also undisputed that father was a dr ug addict in the past and has a long history of drug-related felonies and incarcerations. Regardless of wh ether the gun and drugs belonged to father, it is undisputed father punche d the manager, resulting in a police response, and he was taken into custody from an apartment in whic h he resided and where the children visited him, and where the contraband was found, most of it within easy reach of the children. Father’s arguments that there was no evidence he knew there was contraband simply ask us to reweigh the evidence by accepting his de nial as true and ignoring all the contrary
evidence. The juvenile court reasonably rejected as implausible father’s explanation for how the officers purportedly gained access to, and searched, apartment 968, instead of 964. Father initially told the social worker that Ebony J. found the apartment building keys lying on the ground and let the officers into apartment 968. Father did not repeat this claim during the adjudication hearing, and o ffered no alternative explanation for how the officers would have gained access to the apartment of another tenant. Relying on In re J.N . (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1010, fath er also argues that even if the gun and drugs were in his home, the ci rcumstances presented a “one-time incident” that did not support the assertion of juri sdiction. The facts below are nothing like In re
J.N . There, a mother and father were invol ved in one incident of driving under the
influence with their minor child ren in the car. While all par ties agreed the incident was
serious and resulted in a car acc ident, there was no evidence either parent had a history of alcohol abuse, both parents e xhibited extreme remorse for the occurrence and cooperated with programs, and there was no other evidence of neglect or abuse. On such a record, the court reversed the juvenile court’s exerci se of jurisdiction over the minor children. ( Id . at pp. 1022-1027.)11 In reversing the jurisdictional findings, In re J.N . explained “[i]n evaluating risk based upon a single episode of endangering conduct, a juvenile court should consider the nature of the conduct and a ll surrounding circumstances . It should also consider the present circumstances, which might include, am ong other things, eviden ce of the parent’s current understanding of and attitude toward th e past conduct that endangered a child, or participation in educational programs, or othe r steps taken, by the parent to address the problematic conduct in the interim, and pr obationary support and supervision already being provided through the criminal courts that would help a parent avoid a recurrence of
such an incident. The nature and circumstances of a single incident of harmful or potentially harmful conduct may be sufficient, in a particular case, to establish current risk depending upon present circumstances .” ( In re J.N ., supra , 181 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1025-1026, italics added.)
Even if it were fair to characterize the facts here as presenting a “one-time situation” (and we do not), In re J.N . supports the court’s exercise of jurisdiction. Given the totality of the circumstances presented be low, a preponderance of evidence supported the court’s finding the boys were at substan tial risk of injury in father’s home. In addition to the shotgun, amm unition and illegal drugs kept in areas easily accessible to both boys, there was the statement from Ca .R. confirming “a gun in daddy’s bag”; mother’s reports of father’s volatile behavior, and propensity to act out in anger, yell and make verbal threats; father’s admission that on the day of his arrest he had in fact punched a man in the face; the reports by Emilio Z. and Omar Z. that father had exhibited
hostile and assaultive behavior w ith both of them; and father’s admitted past history of drug abuse. 2 Moreover, father’s apparent lack of insight into the prob lems he allowed to

2 To the extent some of the evidence came from he arsay statements in the Department’s reports, father’s written objections did not render such evidence inadmissible. The statements could be consid ered by the court in conjunction with other legally admissible, corroborative evidence. (§ 355; see also In re Christian P . (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1266, 1277-1278; In re B.D . (2007) 156 Cal.App. 4th 975, 984 [timely objections do not render hearsay statements inadmissible, rather the uncorroborated12 exist in his home (evidenced by his continue d denial of ownership of the gun and drugs without any plausible explanat ion for their discovery in his home), provided further support for the potential of future risk. (See In re Gabriel K . (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 188, 197 [“One cannot correct a probl em one fails to acknowledge.”].)
2. The Removal Order
Father contends the court’s order removi ng the children from hi s custody is also not supported by substantial evidence. In examining father’s claim, “we review the record in the light most favorable to the de pendency court’s order to determine whether it
contains sufficient evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could make the necessary findings by clear a nd convincing evidence.” ( In re Mariah T
., supra , 159 Cal.App.4th at p. 441; accord, In re Heather A.
, supra , 52 Cal.App.4th at p. 193.)
Given the evidence discussed abov e, the record contains subs tantial evidence in support
of the court’s removal order.
DISPOSITION The juvenile court’s jurisdiction and disposition orde rs are affirmed.

GRIMES, J.
We concur: BIGELOW, P. J.

FLIER, J.

hearsay statements do not constitute subs tantial evidence a nd cannot form the exclusive basis for finding jurisdiction under section 300].)