Filed 11/8/23 In re D.C. CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions 

not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion 

has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

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

Under Juvenile Court Law.

_______________________________

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

L.G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B320043 c/w B323476

 (Los Angeles County Super.

Ct. No. 22CCJP00301A-C)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Charles Q. Clay III, Judge. Affirmed.

Elizabeth Alexander, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, and Stephen Watson, Deputy County 

Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

________________________
2

INTRODUCTION

L.G. (mother) appeals the juvenile court’s order exerting 

dependency jurisdiction over her three children, the related 

dispositional order, and the order at the six-month review 

hearing continuing the placement of mother’s two youngest 

children outside mother’s care. None of mother’s arguments has 

merit, so we affirm. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. Mother and Father’s History of Domestic Violence, 

Mother’s Alcohol Consumption, and Impact on 

Children

Mother has four children, D.C. (born 2010), T.C. (born 

2018), A.C. (born 2020), and an adult daughter who is not the 

subject of this appeal. D.C’s father is C.C. A.C and T.C’s father 

is Aaron C. (father). Neither father lived with mother at any 

time relevant to the appeal. Father and mother have a history of 

domestic violence. In March 2019, father started a physical fight 

with mother that caused T.C. to fall out of mother’s arms onto the 

floor, prompting mother to take the infant to the hospital. On 

December 9, 2021, father “dragged [mother] all over the street 

and bit [her] nose.” D.C. reported that the domestic violence 

between father and mother occurs “all over the street” outside the 

home, and that the then 11-year-old witnessed the violence from 

the window of their apartment. D.C. stated she had seen mother 

and father push each other, and her adult sister hit father with a 

broom after father hit mother. D.C. also reported that mother 

drank alcohol “almost every time [mother and father] get into an 

argument.” 

Mother’s neighbor reported that mother is “always drinking 

with [father] in the car or possibly in the home,” and she often 
3

leaves the children home with their adult sister. The adult 

daughter who lives with mother — D.C.’s older sister — reported

that mother and father engage in domestic violence outside the 

home and that mother drinks alcohol outside the home and 

returns home drunk. 

On December 17, 2021, father “broke into [mother’s] house” 

and took T.C. from the home while mother was at her 

grandfather’s birthday celebration. The same day, the 

Department of Children and Family Services (Department)

received a referral alleging mother is an alcoholic who leaves her 

children home alone. 

When father spoke with the Department on December 28, 

2021, he reported that mother provides excellent care for the 

children. About one week later, father rescinded his prior 

statement, explaining that he had not previously been able to

speak freely because mother was there. He reported that he was 

in fact concerned because mother is “an alcoholic,” “leaves the 

house for days at a time,” and “doesn’t clean.” 

C.C., D.C.’s father, also reported concerns about mother 

because of her history of alcohol abuse. He reported that when 

D.C. visits him, she worries and wants to return home to help 

with her siblings. D.C. was reluctant to share with her father

what went on in mother’s home, and sometimes cried when she 

did tell him. D.C. shared that knives were brought out during 

one physical altercation between father and mother. C.C. stated 

that he took D.C. to see a doctor in June 2021 after learning she 

had not been seen by a doctor in six years. He brought her for a 

second appointment a couple months later for her eczema flareup. Although C.C. gave mother the doctor’s prescription for D.C., 

mother never picked up the medication. 
4

D.C. was “absent a lot” from school. After D.C. had not 

been at school for several days, the school tried to contact mother 

on October 3, 2021, but could not reach her. D.C. returned to 

school on October 3 with no note or explanation. 

Mother’s criminal history includes a DUI in 2010 and 

disorderly conduct, intoxication, and carrying a loaded firearm in 

April 2021. Father has an extensive criminal history, including 

trespassing, battery, domestic violence, kidnapping, and 

possession of a firearm. 

2. Removal and Filing of Petition

On January 24, 2022, the Department filed a petition 

under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, alleging under 

subdivisions (a) and (b) that mother and father have a history of 

engaging in violent physical altercations, including in D.C.’s 

presence, which places the children at risk of serious physical 

harm, damage, and danger, and under subdivision (b) that 

mother has a history of substance abuse and is a current abuser 

of alcohol rendering her incapable of caring for the children.

1

At the January 27, 2022, detention hearings, the juvenile 

court removed D.C., A.C., and T.C. from mother and placed them 

with their respective fathers. The court also ordered weekly drug 

and alcohol testing for mother, and granted mother two, two-hour 

monitored visits per week. After three consecutive clean tests, 

mother’s visits would become unmonitored, provided she 

continued to test clean.

1 All future statutory references are to the Welfare and

Institutions Code.
5

3. Mother Moves in with Maternal Grandmother

On February 2, 2022, mother reported that she would be 

moving in with maternal grandmother and staying for a month or 

two. On February 4, 2022, the Department assessed maternal 

grandmother’s home. The living room had 10–15 medium boxes

in the corner. There was a bedroom, but it contained so many 

items that the door could not be opened, and the Department 

could not enter the bedroom to assess it. There was an 

unassembled toddler bed in the apartment, which mother 

reported T.C. and A.C. would share if they were returned to her. 

Mother told the Department that she would assemble the bed 

that evening, and the Department asked her to send a photo of 

the bed once she did. The Department never received a photo. 

4. T.C. and A.C. Are Removed from Their Father

On February 9, 2022, the Department received a referral 

alleging that, although T.C. and A.C. had been placed with 

father, father was homeless. Father had told the court he lived 

with the reporting party in Las Vegas, NV. The reporting party 

“was concerned because father was drinking alcohol excessively,” 

and “would leave the children unattended while falling asleep.” 

“Father was told he had to leave the home and then he began 

making threats of harm . . . .” He then stumbled and knocked 

T.C. over, took A.C. and T.C. and put them in his car, broke car 

windows, stabbed car tires, and drove off before the police 

arrived.2 

The next day, father brought T.C. and A.C. to the 

Department for placement and stated he was unable to care for 

them. 

2

It is unclear from the record whether father vandalized his 

own car or another person’s car. 
6

On February 17, 2022, the juvenile court granted the 

Department’s ex parte application to remove A.C. and T.C. from 

father and have them suitably placed. 

5. Jurisdictional and Dispositional Report

The Department interviewed then 12-year-old D.C. in early 

February 2022. She reported that mother and father argue and 

engage in physical fights, but not inside the apartment. When 

asked whether she had seen father dragging mother down the 

street or hitting mother, she responded “no.” D.C. reported that 

mother “kind of” has “a problem with alcohol,” but that “she does 

not do it every day.” She also explained that mother drinks 

alcohol “sometimes in the afternoon; sometimes at night,” and 

that she “does not act different” when she drinks, but “would get 

kind of tired.” 

The Department also interviewed mother in early February 2022, 

and she reported that domestic violence between father and her

“happen[s] way too often and [she is] not the abuser,” and just 

tries to defend herself. Mother reported that father “is violent 

and that he has a problem with drinking” and “becomes violent” 

when intoxicated. Despite the violence, mother stated she had 

“always tried to allow [father] to be a part of the children’s lives,” 

and that “she thought she was doing the right thing” by allowing 

father to see them. When asked why mother did not obtain a 

restraining order following the 2019 incident in which father hit 

mother, and infant T.C. fell to the ground, mother replied that 

although “she initially obtained a temporary restraining order,” 

she “did not realize how it worked and never pursued it.” The 

Department asked about the most recent restraining order 

mother had obtained against father, and mother “reported that 

she obtained a temporary restraining order, but did not get a 
7

permanent one, because she was unaware of how they worked.” 

Mother reported never having been to a domestic violence 

shelter; she explained that “usually, she just moves to a different 

location, but eventually she tells the fathers where she is 

residing.” Mother also explained that her DUI from 2010 “was 

not abuse of alcohol,” but rather she had only had “a little bit of 

wine and was moving [her] car.” Regarding her 2021 arrest for 

disorderly conduct and public intoxication, mother explained that 

she “was not intoxicated,” but that the police said that she was 

“just because [she] had an outburst.” Mother said that father “is 

a trigger for her to drink,” but reported “that she does not have a 

problem with alcohol and only would drink occasionally.” Mother 

also explained that when she drinks alcohol, “the children are 

usually in the bed and they are usually already fed, bathed and 

asleep.” 

When the Department interviewed father, he reported that 

mother drank alcohol “throughout her pregnancy,” and “that 

mother’s drinking has become worse in the past six months.” 

Father stated that mother “went to jail in . . . April of 2021 

because she had a gun and she was drunk in the streets.” 

6. Jurisdictional Hearing

The jurisdictional hearing took place on February 25, 2022. 

The Department reached a settlement with father, under which 

the subdivision (b) count would be sustained against father as 

amended to omit details about the December 9, 2021, domestic 

violence incident. The subdivision (a) count would be dismissed. 

The juvenile court sustained both counts against mother under 

subdivision (b). 
8

7. Dispositional Hearing

At the March 7, 2022, dispositional hearing, the juvenile 

court ordered D.C., T.C., and A.C. removed from mother—D.C.

placed with C.C., and T.C. and A.C. suitably placed with the 

Department. The court granted mother unmonitored visits and

ordered her to undergo a full drug and alcohol treatment 

program, submit to weekly drug testing, participate in a 12-step 

program, and complete a parenting course and domestic violence 

program for victims. 

8. Notice of Appeal

On April 19, 2022, mother filed a timely notice of appeal 

from the jurisdictional findings and disposition order. 

9. Six-month Review Period

Mother attended AA, a substance abuse program, domestic 

violence classes, and parenting classes. Mother’s substance 

abuse counselor reported on August 5, 2022, that mother “ha[d] 

made some progress,” but that “it[ had] been up and down.” 

Mother “tested positive [for alcohol] a few times,” including once 

in June and once in July. Mother reported learning from the AA 

program that “alcoholism is a disease that can be maintained,” 

and from the domestic violence classes the “red flags of unhealthy 

relationships” and the importance of “set[ting] boundaries.” She 

also reported that “now [she] need[ed] to apologize to [her] 

children for being in an abusive relationship.” Mother’s AA 

sponsor reported that mother’s classes are “helping her,” that 

mother “will be ok,” and that she “is doing a lot better now that 

[father] is in jail and he’s not around.”3 Between January 2022 

and July 2022, mother tested negative on all of her random 

3 Father was arrested on May 6, 2022. 
9

weekly drug and alcohol tests, except for three days on which she 

was a “no show.” 

10. Section 364/Six-month Review Hearing

On September 9, 2022, the juvenile court heard mother’s 

section 364 petition for the return of her children and also 

conducted the six-month review hearing. The court awarded 

mother and C.C. joint legal and physical custody of D.C., 

terminated jurisdiction over D.C., but stayed the termination 

pending the issuance of the juvenile custody order. 

As to T.C. and A.C., the court found that mother’s progress 

with her case plan had been “substantial,” continued jurisdiction 

and reunification services, and kept the order of suitable 

placement in place, finding “by clear and convincing evidence 

that return of [T.C. and A.C.] to the physical custody of [mother] 

would create a substantial risk of detriment to the child[ren], 

creating a continued necessity for appropriateness of the current 

placement.” 

11. Notices of Appeal

Mother filed her second notice of appeal on September 7,

2022—this one from the orders made at the six-month review 

hearing. Two days later, the juvenile court entered the formal 

custody order and terminated jurisdiction as to D.C. Mother 

timely filed an amended notice of appeal on September 14, 2022. 

Upon mother’s request, we consolidated her appeal from the 

juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings with her appeal from the 

finding at the six-month review hearing that it would be 

detrimental to return A.C. and T.C. to her custody. 
10

DISCUSSION

1. Justiciability

As a threshold matter, the Department asserts that 

mother’s challenge to the jurisdictional findings is moot because 

father did not challenge the jurisdictional findings related to his 

conduct. We disagree. Where, as here, “a jurisdictional finding 

‘serves as the basis for dispositional orders that are also 

challenged on appeal’ [citation], the appeal is not moot.” (In re 

D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 283.) The Department is correct that 

“[t]he problem that the juvenile court seeks to address [in its 

dispositional order] need not be described in the sustained section 

300 petition.” (In re Briana V. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 297, 311

[rejecting a father’s challenge to an order requiring him to attend 

sexual abuse counseling].) But that observation is irrelevant 

here, where the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings plainly 

formed the basis for its dispositional order insofar as it removed

the children from mother and ordered mother to attend a drug 

and alcohol treatment program, submit to weekly drug testing, 

participate in a 12-step program, and complete a domestic 

violence program for victims. Those findings were also the basis 

of the court’s denial of mother’s section 364 petition in which she 

asked that two of her children be returned to her. Accordingly, 

we address mother’s challenge to the jurisdictional findings on 

the merits.

2. The Jurisdictional Findings Were Supported by 

Substantial Evidence

Mother asserts that the petition must be dismissed “in its 

entirety” as to her because “there was no defined risk of harm to 

all three children.” 
11

A juvenile court may exert jurisdiction over a child under 

section 300, subdivision (b)(1), if it finds by a preponderance of 

the evidence that “ ‘[t]he child 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,’ ” the 

willful or negligent failure of the parent to provide the child with 

adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment, or the 

inability of the parent to provide regular care for the minor due to 

the parent’s mental illness, developmental disability or substance 

abuse.’ ” (In re Joaquin C. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 537, 561.) 

“The relevant inquiry under section 300, subdivision (b)(1), 

is whether circumstances at the time of the jurisdictional hearing 

“ ‘ “subject the minor to the defined risk of harm.” ’ ” (In re L.B.

(2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 402, 411 (L.B.); In re T.V. (2013) 

217 Cal.App.4th 126, 133.) “To establish a defined risk of harm 

at the time of the hearing, there ‘must be some reason beyond 

mere speculation to believe the alleged conduct will recur.’ ” 

(L.B., at p. 411, quoting In re D.L. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1142, 

1146 (D.L.); see also In re Kadence P. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 

1376, 1383 [“the court need not wait until a child is seriously 

abused or injured to assume jurisdiction and take steps necessary 

to protect the child”].) “The court may consider past events in 

deciding whether a child currently needs the court’s protection.” 

(Ibid.) “[W]e must uphold the court’s [jurisdictional] findings 

unless, after reviewing the entire record and resolving all 

conflicts in favor of the respondent and drawing all reasonable 

inferences in support of the judgment, we determine there is no 

substantial evidence to support the findings.” (In re J.N. (2010) 

181 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1022.) 
12

There is no dispute that domestic violence occurred 

between father and mother: D.C., her adult sister, mother, and 

father all reported the same. “[I]n a domestic violence situation, 

past violence is highly probative of the risk that violence may 

recur.” (L.B., supra, 88 Cal.App.5th at p. 411.) In 2019, while 

mother was holding infant T.C., father pushed mother, knocking 

T.C. to the ground and prompting mother to take T.C. to the 

hospital. In December 2021, mother reported that father dragged 

her through the street and bit her nose. 

The court’s implied finding of a defined risk of harm was 

based on even more compelling evidence—including mother’s own 

reports—that “mother and [father] repeatedly engage in domestic 

violence.” (Italics added.) That is, the instances of domestic 

violence between father and mother were not merely isolated 

incidents from the distant past, but were ongoing; mother herself 

reported—in the weeks preceding the jurisdictional hearing—

that the domestic violence “does happen way too often.”

Mother urges that there was no defined risk of harm to the 

children because she “was not in a relationship with [father]” and 

acknowledged the family needed “to stay away from [father].”

But this ignores the evidence—including father’s and mother’s 

own reports—that father has issues with “jealousy” and that 

violence between them had occurred during arguments about 

them “no longer [being] together.” 

What is more, mother reported that she did not pursue 

permanent restraining orders after the 2019 incident in which 

father hit mother, knocking T.C. to the ground, or after the 2021 

incident in which father dragged her on the street and bit her.

To the contrary, Mother reported “that in spite of the domestic 

violence, she has always tried to allow [father] to be part of the 
13

children’s lives.” D.C. told the Department that father and 

mother get into arguments every two to three weeks. D.C. also 

disclosed to C.C. that knives were present during one fight 

between father and mother, and that another time mother’s adult 

daughter hit father with a broom to defend mother after father

had hit her. Taken together, this evidence established “reason 

beyond mere speculation” to believe the domestic violence would 

recur. (D.L., supra, 22 Cal.App.5th at p. 1146.) 

The juvenile court’s finding that mother’s alcohol use posed 

a defined risk of harm was also supported by substantial 

evidence: Mother’s adult daughter reported that mother would 

drink outside the home and return home inebriated. Mother’s 

neighbor reported that “mother is always drinking,” yelling, and 

cussing, and that mother often leaves the children home with 

their adult sister. C.C. reported that mother left D.C. at school 

one day in January of 2022, and the school reported that D.C.

had various unexplained absences. C.C. took D.C. to see a doctor 

after learning that she had not seen a doctor in six years.

Mother’s criminal history includes a DUI, disorderly conduct, and 

carrying a loaded firearm. 

When the Department interviewed mother before the 

jurisdictional hearing, she reported “never [drinking] to the point 

of being inebriated.” Particularly “where the parent denies there 

is a problem,” “[a] court is entitled to infer past conduct will 

continue.” (In re K.B. (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 593, 605; see also In 

re Gabriel K. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 188, 197 [“One cannot 

correct a problem one fails to acknowledge”]; In re V.L. (2020) 

54 Cal.App.5th 147, 156.) In support of her argument that there 

was no defined risk from her alcohol use, mother cites the 

Department’s recommendation of unmonitored visitation for 
14

mother and D.C. and D.C’s counsel’s request that D.C. be ordered 

to the home of both C.C. and mother. But neither the 

Department’s recommendation nor counsel’s request negates the 

contrary substantial evidence of risk of harm. Mother also cites 

her three consecutive negative drug and alcohol tests. Mother 

essentially asks us to reweigh the evidence which we cannot, and 

do not, undertake. (In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614, 641.) 

Finally, mother asserts that the Department “wrote the 

children were healthy,” and points out that “mother had been the 

primary caregiver of all three children their entire lives.” Again, 

this assertion does not undermine the substantial evidence that 

supports the juvenile court’s order. Specifically, “the court need 

not wait until a child is seriously abused or injured to assume 

jurisdiction and take steps necessary to protect the child.” (In re 

Kadence P. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1376, 1383.) 

3. Mother Has Forfeited Her Argument That the Sixmonth Review Finding of Detriment Was Not 

Supported by Substantial Evidence

Mother argues that the juvenile court’s continued removal 

of T.C. and A.C. from mother’s custody at the six-month review 

hearing was not supported by substantial evidence. The 

Department responds that mother has waived this argument 

under the doctrine of invited error. We agree that mother’s claim 

is forfeited. 

“Under the doctrine of invited error, when a party by its 

own conduct induces the commission of error, it may not claim on 

appeal that the judgment should be reversed because of that 

error.” (In re G.P. (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1193.) 

At the six-month review hearing, mother’s counsel 

specifically asked the juvenile court “to grant mother overnight 
15

visits at the current caregiver’s home in Lancaster,” claiming 

that “she is considering the best interest of the children here in 

asking that those overnights take place at the caregiver’s home so 

as not to disrupt the children’s regular routine and schedule that 

they have established there.” Mother’s counsel added: “We do 

think this is an appropriate request at this point, considering 

mother’s progress in her case plan. We would just ask the 

Department to have discretion to further liberalize those visits.” 

The record leaves no room for dispute that the error mother 

claims on appeal—if an error at all—was one that she invited 

when she specifically requested that the juvenile court grant her 

overnight visits at the caretaker’s house and did not object to the 

court’s decision not to return custody of the children to her. 

In her reply brief, mother suggests that in the absence of 

her “stipulation” that the children not be returned to her, her 

objection at the March 7, 2022, hearing “to the court not making 

a home of parent mother order” extended to the September 6, 

2022, six-month review hearing. She cites no authority for a socalled “standing objection” procedure that continues from hearing 

to hearing. Such a rule would make no sense in juvenile 

proceedings where conditions often change from month to month, 

and the then-present situation of the parties is critical to the 

court’s orders. The reporter’s transcript from the September 6, 

2022, hearing shows that mother had no objection to—and indeed 

requested that—A.C. and T.C. remain placed with their caretaker

with mother having overnight visits in caretaker’s home. 
16

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s findings and orders are affirmed.

RUBIN, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

MOOR, J.

KIM, J.