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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 Court of Los Angeles County. Patricia S. 

Spear, Judge. Affirmed. 

 Eva E. Chick, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant. 

 John F. Krattli, County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, 

and Sarah Vesecky, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

* * * * * * 
2

 Father Cristobal R. appeals from the juvenile court’s orders at the December 2013 

jurisdiction and disposition hearing declaring his two minor sons, Ch.R. and Ca.R., to be 

dependents pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)1 and 

removing them from his custody. Father contends there is no substantial, credible 

evidence supporting either order. We are not persuaded and therefore affirm. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

 On September 1, 2013, two officers from the Los Angeles Police Department 

responded to father’s apartment building, pursuant to a dispatch call that the apartment 

manager for the building had reported that father assaulted him. During their initial visit, 

the officers spoke with the apartment manager (Emilio Z.) but father could not be located 

on the premises. Emilio Z. explained he had asked father to turn down his music because 

other residents had complained, and father punched him twice on the side of his head. 

Emilio Z. also reported that residents of the building believed father sold narcotics from 

his apartment. The officers left and then returned to the building a couple of hours later 

in response to a second dispatch call, reporting father had committed another assault or 

made threats, and was back in his apartment. 

 The officers returned to the apartment building and spoke 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 altercation 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 refused to come outside and told the officers 

“I am not opening the door for the police.” Both Ch.R. (age 8) and Ca.R. (age 4), were 

standing next to father, “crying hysterically.” 

The officers made several attempts to persuade father to step outside peaceably. 

Father finally complied and came out with his two boys and the family dog. The police 

 

1 All further undesignated section references are to the Welfare and Institutions 

Code. 
3

officers immediately detained father and advised 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 the 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 with 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 jar 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 large jar of what appeared to be marijuana 

(also from inside a lower kitchen cabinet), a prescription pill bottle with the patient name 

of “Kevin Douglas,” two baggies containing a crystal-like substance that appeared to 

methamphetamine, a pump action shotgun in a black case (from behind the bedroom 

door), several shotgun rounds and a loaded magazine, two boxes of handgun ammunition, 

two digital scales, and a black baton. 

 Ch.R. and Ca.R. are father’s children with his former girlfriend, Lisa B. 

Following a telephone call by Ebony J., Lisa B. came to the apartment and picked up the 

boys. Father was taken to the police station to be booked. 

Father was arrested on a charge of misdemeanor child endangerment. (Pen. Code, 

§ 273a.) The arresting officers recommended additional 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 Lisa 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 explained the boys lived with her 

but there was a family court order, in effect since December 2012, allowing father 

visitation with the boys on the first, third and fifth weekends of each month. Mother said 
4

she was distressed by the events of September 1 and had gone back to family court to 

obtain a temporary emergency order which precluded any visitation with father pending 

the juvenile court hearing. 

Mother told the social worker 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 and 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 inmate 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 said he did throw things and 

yelled a lot. Mother said she had no idea what was going on at father’s house, but she 

knew him to have a long history of drug use, arrests and violent behavior. 

Both of the boys denied any abuse by father 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 worker 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 interviewed by the social worker on September 17, he reported 

the district attorney was not going to be filing any charges against him. As for the 

battery, he admitted “I socked him,” but claimed it was self-defense after he got into an 

argument with the victim over threats to turn off the electricity to his apartment. As for 

the gun and drugs, father said the police searched the “wrong 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 their 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 police into apartment 968, instead of 964 where 
5

he actually lived. Father said Ebony J. was a girl he had known only 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 also 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 shotgun and ammunition to be in 

the home, within easy access of both children, thus placing them at substantial risk of 

harm. The Department also alleged, in a separate count (paragraph b-2), that father 

suffered from mental and emotional problems, including bipolar disorder, which rendered 

father incapable of providing 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 further found a prima facie case to detain both Ch.R. and 

Ca.R. pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b), and to remove the boys from father’s 

custody. The boys were released to mother. Father was allowed monitored visitation 

twice weekly. 

 In the jurisdiction and disposition report, Dana Wilson, the dependency 

investigator (DI), reported that father’s monitored visitation with the 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 administrative complaint with the Los Angeles Police 

Department regarding his false arrest on September 1, 2013. Father also provided 

DI Wilson with paperwork, including 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 presently stable and not in need of medication, 
6

and a certificate of completion from the Los Angeles Transitional Center for a drug and 

alcohol program. Father explained 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 voluntarily in a parenting class and individual 

counseling. Father believes he is a good parent, and he thinks mother is also a good 

parent who takes good care of the boys. 

 Mother said she was extremely worried about the situation, and just wanted her 

children to be safe. She said she believed father normally took good care of the children 

when they visited, but she did not know everything about “his personal life.” Mother 

said father has anger management issues and the “situation scare[s] her.” Mother 

believes the children are “very attached” to father. 

 DI Wilson spoke to the deputy district attorney regarding the criminal charges 

filed against father, who advised that because the police officers had not obtained a 

search warrant for the apartment, it was determined the illegal drugs 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 never 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 disposition hearing proceeded on December 12, 

2013. At the beginning of the hearing, the court admitted the Department reports, which 
7

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, not 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 enter 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. Father verified copies of various documents 

identifying his residential address as apartment 964, including a cable bill, his car 

registration, a Medi-Cal document, his rental agreement, and a notice from the Los 

Angeles County Department of Public Social Services. The documents were admitted as 

evidence, along with several photographs father 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 also testified he did not own any 

guns, never let his boys have access to firearms, and never used drugs around them. 

 Following argument by all counsel, the court dismissed the paragraph b-2 

allegation (father’s mental health/failure to supervise) in the interests of justice. Finding 

a preponderance of evidence supported the determination 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] created a detrimental and endangering home 

environment for the children in that methamphetamine, marijuana, a firearm and 
8

ammunition were found in the children’s home, within access of the children. Such a 

detrimental and endangering home environment established for the children by the father 

endangers the children’s physical health and safety, creates a detrimental home 

environment and places the children 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. The boys were placed with mother, who was 

nonoffending and willing to submit to the court’s jurisdiction. The Department was 

ordered to provide mother with assistance, including transportation assistance with 

respect to the monitored visitation for father and counseling for the children. Father was 

ordered to have monitored visitation with a Department-approved monitor, and the 

Department was granted discretion to liberalize visitation. Father was also ordered to 

complete anger management and parenting courses, as well as individual counseling. 

The Department was to investigate whether the programs father had voluntarily initiated 

were Department-approved programs. The court ordered, with father’s express consent 

on the record, that the social worker could make 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 evidence supporting the court’s assertion of 

jurisdiction over his two minor sons. “The standard of proof at the jurisdictional stage of 

a dependency proceeding is a preponderance of the evidence, and we will affirm the 

court’s findings if they are supported 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 findings of the trial court.” ’ ”]; and In re Heather A. (1996) 

52 Cal.App.4th 183, 193.) The record supports the juvenile court’s assertion of 

jurisdiction pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b). 
9

Section 300, subdivision (b)(1) allows a court to assert dependency 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 protect the child.” As the Supreme Court recently 

explained, “section 300 does not require that a child actually be abused or neglected 

before the juvenile court can assume 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, protection, 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 four-year-old and an eight-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 infer that child 11 years of age is subjected to substantial 

risk of harm when placed in a home environment allowing access to drugs].) 

Father primarily contends there was no credible evidence the gun, ammunition and 

illegal drugs were found in his residence because 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 arrest 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 open the door, then did so, and was arrested 
10

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. permitted 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 attorney 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 drug addict in the past and has a long history of drug-related 

felonies and incarcerations. Regardless of whether the gun and drugs belonged to father, 

it is undisputed father punched the manager, resulting in a police response, and he was 

taken into custody from an apartment in which 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 denial 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 offered 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, father also argues that even if 

the gun and drugs were in his home, the circumstances presented a “one-time incident” 

that did not support the assertion of jurisdiction. The facts below are nothing like In re 

J.N. There, a mother and father were involved in one incident of driving under the 

influence with their minor children in the car. While all parties agreed the incident was 

serious and resulted in a car accident, there was no evidence either parent had a history of 

alcohol abuse, both parents exhibited 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 exercise 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 all surrounding circumstances. It should also consider the 

present circumstances, which might include, among other things, evidence of the parent’s 

current understanding of and attitude toward the past conduct that endangered a child, or 

participation in educational programs, or other steps taken, by the parent to address the 

problematic conduct in the interim, and probationary 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 below, a preponderance of evidence supported 

the court’s finding the boys were at substantial risk of injury in father’s home. In 

addition to the shotgun, ammunition 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 with both of them; and father’s admitted past history of 

drug abuse.2 Moreover, father’s apparent lack of insight into the problems he allowed to 

 

2 To the extent some of the evidence came from hearsay statements in the 

Department’s reports, father’s written objections did not render such evidence 

inadmissible. The statements could be considered 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 uncorroborated 
12

exist in his home (evidenced by his continued denial of ownership of the gun and drugs 

without any plausible explanation 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 problem one fails to acknowledge.”].) 

2. The Removal Order 

Father contends the court’s order removing the children from his custody is also 

not supported by substantial evidence. In examining father’s claim, “we review the 

record in the light most favorable to the dependency court’s order to determine whether it 

contains sufficient evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could make the 

necessary findings by clear and 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 above, the record contains substantial evidence in support 

of the court’s removal order. 

DISPOSITION 

 The juvenile court’s jurisdiction and disposition orders are affirmed. 

 GRIMES, J. 

We concur: 

 BIGELOW, P. J. 

 FLIER, J. 

 

hearsay statements do not constitute substantial evidence and cannot form the exclusive

basis for finding jurisdiction under section 300].)