Filed 10/7/20 In re Nathaniel G. CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re NATHANIEL G., et al., Persons

Coming Under the Juvenile Court 

Law.

 B299550

 (Los Angeles County

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND 

FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent.

v.

CHRISTIAN G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP01712A-B)

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County. Martha Matthews, Judge and Robin Kessler, Juvenile 

Court Referee. Affirmed.

Keiter Appellate Law and Mitchell Keiter, under 

appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.
2

Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant 

County Counsel, and Aileen Wong, Deputy County Counsel for 

Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________

Appellant Cristian G. (father) appeals from orders 

establishing dependency jurisdiction over his children, Nathaniel

(born 2013) and Evelyn (born 2015), based on father’s history of 

substance abuse and current use of marijuana, and on substance 

abuse by the children’s mother, Martha V. (mother).

1 Father also 

challenges the dispositional order requiring him to complete a 

parenting program. We affirm the juvenile court’s orders.

BACKGROUND

Prior child welfare history

December 2013

In December 2013, the Los Angeles County Department of 

Children and Family Services (the Department) received a 

referral alleging general neglect by mother and emotional abuse 

by father. The caller reported that mother was allowing father to 

remain overnight in the home in violation of a restraining order 

against him. The restraining order was issued after an incident 

of domestic violence in October 2013, during which the maternal 

grandmother saw father choking mother with one hand while 

holding a knife in the other hand. When the maternal 

grandmother entered the room to remove infant Nathaniel, 

father released mother and attempted to take Nathaniel from the 

maternal grandmother. The maternal grandmother called the 

police, and father was arrested.

____________________________________________________________

1 Mother is not a party to this appeal.
3

The parents denied any physical altercation or that father 

had brandished a knife against mother. They accused the 

maternal grandmother of making false accusations. The 

Department concluded the allegation of emotional abuse was 

unfounded and the allegation of general neglect was inconclusive. 

January 2014

The Department received a referral in January 2014 that 

the maternal grandmother’s boyfriend had violated a protective 

order prohibiting him from contacting the maternal grandmother 

or from entering her home. The boyfriend reportedly screamed at 

Nathaniel. Allegations of general neglect and emotional abuse 

were deemed to be unfounded. Mother agreed to move out of the 

maternal grandmother’s home. 

October 2015

An October 2015 referral alleged the parents smoked 

marijuana in the home and hit both children. The responding 

social worker observed no marks or bruises on the children; 

however, a subsequent medical exam revealed that Evelyn had 

an old rib fracture. Neither mother nor father could explain the 

cause of the fracture.

A non-detention petition was filed on behalf of the children. 

The juvenile court sustained allegations under Welfare and 

Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (a),2 that mother’s 

history of substance abuse, her current abuse of marijuana, and 

her status as a registered controlled substance offender placed 

the children at risk of harm; and under subdivision (j), that 

Evelyn had sustained a subacute rib fracture that would not 

ordinarily occur absent deliberate, unreasonable, and neglectful

____________________________________________________________

2 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code.
4

acts by mother and father, placing both children at risk of harm.

The parents agreed to participate in a voluntary family 

maintenance plan from May 2016 to January 2017 that included 

random drug testing and parenting education. Mother completed 

a parenting program, tested positive for drugs in June 2016 and 

failed to participate in any further drug testing. Father was 

incarcerated in September 2016 and did not drug test or complete 

a parenting education class. 

February 7, 2019

A February 7, 2019 referral alleged general neglect by 

mother. According to the reporting party, Nathaniel’s school had 

telephoned numerous times but was unable to reach mother. The 

reporting party stated that mother used drugs and alcohol on a 

daily basis. The five-day referral was terminated when the 

responding social worker learned that an immediate response 

referral was already under investigation.

February 11, 2019

On February 11, 2019, the Department received a referral 

alleging physical abuse of Nathaniel by mother. The caller 

witnessed mother cursing and hitting Nathaniel, who was crying. 

The child had a bruise on his face. The caller reported that 

mother and the children sleep in a car in a parking lot and that 

mother smokes something that generates “a lot of white smoke” 

while the children are in the car. The investigating social worker 

observed a fading dime-sized bruise on Nathaniel’s face. 

Nathaniel said mother had hit him with a sandal. Mother denied 

hitting the child and being homeless. The referral was closed as 

inconclusive. 
5

Detention and section 300 petition

The Department received another referral on February 26, 

2019, after mother was arrested for inhaling nitrous oxide while 

standing outside a barbershop. The children were inside the 

barbershop at the time and were subsequently released to father. 

The responding social worker spoke to the maternal 

grandmother by telephone on February 27, 2019. The maternal 

grandmother confirmed that mother had been arrested the 

previous day for being intoxicated while outside a barbershop. 

The maternal grandmother reported that a few days earlier she 

found mother in the bathtub in the maternal grandmother’s 

home. Mother was intoxicated and had flooded the bathroom 

floor. The children were not present during that incident. The 

maternal grandmother stated that mother no longer lived in, and 

was no longer allowed in the home. The maternal grandmother 

further reported that approximately two weeks earlier, mother 

was intoxicated and verbally assaulted the maternal 

grandmother in the presence of the children. The maternal 

grandmother expressed concern about the children’s welfare. 

The social worker met with father and the children at the 

paternal grandmother’s home on February 27, 2019. Father said 

he lived in Northern California and happened to be visiting the 

paternal grandmother at the time of mother’s arrest. A friend 

gave the arresting officer father’s telephone number, and the 

officer called father and released the children to him.

Father said he knew mother smoked marijuana and that he 

and mother had smoked marijuana when they were a couple. 

Father said he has smoked marijuana periodically since he was 

15 years old and last did so one week earlier. He denied smoking 

marijuana in the presence of the children. 
6

Father admitted to an incident of domestic violence with 

mother in 2016. He was arrested and served 11 months of a twoyear prison sentence. An active restraining order prohibited 

father from having contact with mother. Father agreed to drug 

test and tested negative for all substances on February 28, 2019. 

He further agreed to voluntarily leave the paternal 

grandmother’s home so the children could be placed there

temporarily. 

In a February 27, 2019 interview, mother described her 

arrest as a misunderstanding. She had taken the children to a 

friend’s barbershop for a haircut and had stepped outside when a 

male sitting in the driver’s seat of a parked car began speaking to 

her. Mother did not know the occupants of the car but asked the 

driver for a cigarette. She walked away when she saw several 

police cars arriving at the scene. She denied using nitrous oxide 

or any illegal substances. Mother also denied being intoxicated 

in the maternal grandmother’s bathtub. She said Evelyn had 

opened the bathtub faucet and spilled water on the floor, and the 

maternal grandmother became upset. Mother agreed to drug test 

on February 28, 2019, but then failed to appear for the test. 

Officer Ceja of the Huntington Park Police Department 

spoke with the social worker about mother’s arrest. He said that 

officers had observed mother inhaling nitrous oxide from a 

balloon while standing in front of a barbershop on February 26, 

2019. Mother’s eyes were watery and glassy, and she appeared to 

be confused. Officer Ceja further stated that he had responded to 

a call at the maternal grandmother’s home two weeks earlier and 

found mother intoxicated and in the midst of a verbal altercation 

with the maternal grandmother. 
7

Mother’s criminal history included a July 2012 felony 

conviction for possession of a controlled substance for sale, and an 

October 2012 misdemeanor conviction for possession of a 

controlled substance. Father’s criminal history included a 

January 2014 misdemeanor conviction for battery on a spouse 

and a stay away order from mother and the maternal 

grandmother, and a September 2016 felony conviction for 

infliction of injury on a spouse and a criminal protective order 

protecting mother until September 27, 2026. 

The Department filed a petition on behalf of the children on 

March 15, 2019, alleging, under section 300, subdivision (b), that 

mother’s history of substance abuse and current use of nitrous 

oxide, marijuana, and alcohol rendered her incapable of providing 

the children with regular care and supervision; that mother was 

under the influence of substances while the children were in her 

care; that mother was a registered controlled substance offender 

and had drug related criminal convictions; that the children were 

of such a young age as to require constant care and supervision; 

that father failed to protect the children from mother’s substance 

abuse; and that mother’s substance abuse and father’s failure to 

protect placed the children at risk of serious physical harm. The 

petition further alleged, under section 300, subdivision (b), that 

father had a history of substance abuse and was a current user of 

marijuana, rendering him incapable of providing regular care and

supervision of the children; that the children were of such a 

young age as to require constant care and supervision; and that 

father’s substance abuse interfered with the regular care and 

supervision of the children, placing them at risk of serious 

physical harm. 
8

Both parents were present at the March 18, 2019 hearing 

at which the juvenile court ordered the children detained from 

mother. Over the Department’s objection, the court ordered the 

children released to father. Mother was accorded monitored 

visits, not to be monitored by father. 

Jurisdiction and disposition

In May 2019, the Department reported that the children 

were residing in the paternal grandmother’s home with father, 

the paternal grandmother, and two adult paternal aunts. Father 

had obtained employment, and the paternal grandmother and 

aunts helped care for the children while father was at work. The 

Department reported that the paternal grandmother appeared to 

be the children’s primary caregiver and that the paternal 

grandmother had requested custody of the children because she 

“was already doing everything for them.”

Father had not enrolled the children in school, as he did not 

have the children’s birth certificates. Father had not, however,

sought to obtain the birth certificates, nor had he asked for the 

Department’s assistance in doing so.

The Department expressed concern that father was 

allowing mother to have unmonitored contact with the children. 

On March 20, 2019, Nathaniel said he and Evelyn had an 

overnight visit at mother’s home. On April 18, 2019, Nathaniel

told the social worker that he was going to mother’s home over 

the weekend. Although father denied that mother had 

unmonitored visits with the children, the social worker noted 

that Nathaniel had provided specific details about mother’s home

and the long drive there.

In a May 2019 last minute information for the court, the 

Department reported that father was not in compliance with 
9

court orders. Father failed to drug test on April 10 and April 29, 

2019, and had tested positive for marijuana on April 24, 2019.

The Department recommended that the paternal grandmother be 

appointed as a co-holder of the children’s educational rights, as 

she was in the process of enrolling the children in school. 

In a July 2019 last minute information for the court, the 

Department reported that mother had failed to drug test six 

times between May 17, 2019 and June 18, 2019. Father failed to 

drug test on May 22 and June 6, 2019. 

The Department continued to express concern that father 

was allowing mother to have unmonitored contact with the 

children. On June 20, 2019, mother told the social worker that 

she was taking the children to the zoo that day. When the social 

worker explained that a monitor had to be present during the 

visit and asked mother who would be serving as the monitor, 

mother became argumentative and cursed. Later that same day, 

the social worker conducted an unannounced visit at the paternal 

grandmother’s home and found that the children were absent. 

Father claimed the children were with a cousin. 

Jurisdiction and disposition hearing

At the July 3, 2019 adjudication hearing, the juvenile court 

admitted into evidence the Department’s reports. Officer Ceja

then testified about his interactions with mother while she was 

intoxicated. 

Father’s counsel argued that the allegation that father 

failed to protect the children from mother’s substance abuse

should be dismissed, because father had been unaware of 

mother’s substance abuse. Father’s counsel also asked the court 

to dismiss the marijuana use allegation for lack of sufficient 

evidence. The children’s counsel joined in father’s arguments. 
10

The juvenile court then asked the Department to address 

two issues -- (1) whether father failed to protect the children from 

mother’s substance abuse when he was living in a different part 

of the state and had taken appropriate action when he learned of 

the problem, and (2) whether there was a nexus between father’s 

marijuana use and any negative impact on the children. The 

Department argued that father demonstrated a lack of insight 

regarding the risk his marijuana use presented to the children, 

as reflected in his multiple failures to drug test, his positive test 

for marijuana, and his allowing mother to have unmonitored and 

overnight visits with the children, in violation of court orders. 

The juvenile court dismissed the failure to protect 

allegation against father but sustained the allegation regarding 

father’s marijuana use. The court noted that father had failed to 

drug test on multiple occasions and had tested positive for 

marijuana on the single occasion that he did appear for testing. 

The juvenile court further noted that the children were both very 

young, that father’s ongoing issue with marijuana put them at 

risk of harm, and that father had violated court orders 

prohibiting mother from having unmonitored contact with the 

children.

The juvenile court then proceeded with the disposition 

hearing. The court ordered the children removed from mother’s 

custody and released to father. The court ordered family 

maintenance services for father, including drug testing. The 

juvenile court further ordered father to enroll in a parenting 

class, noting that the children were very young, that father had 

not been their primary caregiver in the past, and that a 

parenting class would be essential in helping father to assume 

that role. This appeal followed.
11

DISCUSSION

Father contends there was insufficient evidence to support 

the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding that his marijuana use 

placed the children at substantial risk of serious physical harm. 

Father further contends the juvenile court erred by basing its 

jurisdiction on father’s violation of the court order requiring 

monitored visits between mother and the children -- a ground not 

alleged in the section 300 petition. Father also challenges the 

dispositional order requiring him to enroll in a parenting class.

As we discuss, substantial evidence supports the juvenile 

court’s jurisdictional findings, and the order requiring father to 

complete a parenting class was not an abuse of discretion.

I. Justiciability

Because mother is not a party to this appeal, and there is 

no appellate challenge to the jurisdictional findings pertaining to 

her, we need not address the merits of father’s appeal. “‘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.’

[Citation.]” (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773.) We 

nevertheless exercise our discretion to consider the merits of 

father’s appeal.
12

II. Jurisdiction

A. Applicable law and standard of review

Section 300, subdivision (b) authorizes the juvenile court to 

assume jurisdiction over a child if “[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 . . . to adequately supervise or protect the child.”

We review father’s challenge to the sufficiency of the 

evidence supporting the juvenile court’s jurisdictional orders 

under the substantial evidence standard. (In re Alexis E. (2009) 

171 Cal.App.4th 438, 450.) Under that standard, “the issue is 

whether there is evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, to 

support the finding. In making that determination, the 

reviewing court reviews the record in the light most favorable to 

the challenged order, resolving conflicts in the evidence in favor 

of that order, and giving the evidence reasonable inferences. 

Weighing evidence, assessing credibility, and resolving conflicts 

in evidence and in the inferences to be drawn from evidence are 

the domain of the trial court, not the reviewing court. Evidence 

from a single witness, even a party, can be sufficient to support 

the trial court’s findings. [Citations.]” (Id. at pp. 450-451.)

B. Substantial evidence supports the jurisdictional 

findings

Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s 

jurisdictional findings regarding father’s marijuana use. The 

evidence shows that father had used marijuana since he was 14 

or 15 years old and continued to do so. Although father obtained 

custody of the children on the condition that he continue to test 

negative for drugs, he failed to appear for testing on April 10, 23, 
13

29, May 22, and June 6, 2019. On the single occasion that father

did test, he was positive for marijuana. 

Father also failed to fulfill his obligations as a parent. He 

did not enroll the children in school and was often absent from 

the home. “[O]ne of the most salient manifestations of parental 

substance abuse” is the “‘“failure to fulfill major role obligations 

at . . . home . . . .”’ [Citation.]” (In re Natalie A. (2015) 243 

Cal.App.4th 178, 185.) The paternal grandmother assumed the 

role of the children’s primary caregiver, obtaining the children’s 

birth certificates, enrolling them in school, and becoming a coholder of their educational rights. The maternal grandmother 

twice requested custody of the children because she “was already 

doing everything for them.” 

That the maternal grandmother and two paternal aunts 

also lived in the home did not relieve father of his parental 

obligations or his role as the children’s primary caregiver. In re 

Jeanette S. (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 52, on which father relies, is 

distinguishable. The appellate court in that case reversed a 

dispositional order placing a child in the custody of the social 

services agency, instead of the child’s father, but affirmed the 

orders establishing dependency jurisdiction over the child and 

removing her from her mother’s custody. (Id. at pp. 59-60.) The 

court in Jeanette S. reasoned that placing the child with her 

father, who lived with two adult relatives who were willing to 

help care for the child if placed in the home, was a reasonable 

alternative to awarding custody to the social services agency. (Id. 

at pp. 60-61.) In this case, father was granted custody of the 

children but failed to meet his parental obligations and relied 

instead on the parental grandmother to assume responsibility as 

the children’s primary caregiver.
14

Father’s violation of the order for monitored visitation

between mother and the children is further evidence of his failure 

to fulfill his parental obligations. It also placed the children at 

substantial risk of harm. Father allowed mother to have 

unmonitored contact with the children, including overnight and 

weekend visits, despite her history of substance abuse, her 

current unresolved substance abuse problems, and her repeated 

failure to drug test throughout the case. The juvenile court did 

not err by basing its jurisdiction in part on father’s 

noncompliance with the visitation order. Father had a prior 

dependency case involving the children and cannot claim to have 

been unaware of the need to comply with the juvenile court’s 

orders. Father’s reliance on non-dependency civil cases (e.g., 

Committee on Children’s Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. 

(1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 211-211 and Fuentes v. Tucker (1947) 31 

Cal.2d 1, 4) as support for the argument that he had no notice 

that his violation of the visitation order could be a basis for the 

juvenile court’s assumption of jurisdiction is unavailing. The 

juvenile court could consider the totality of the circumstances in 

determining whether the children were at a substantial risk of 

harm and jurisdiction was appropriate. (In re J.K. (2009) 174 

Cal.App.4th 1426, 1440.)

Both Nathaniel and Evelyn were children of “tender years,” 

requiring constant supervision and care. Under these 

circumstances, father’s substance abuse problem was prima facie 

evidence of his inability to provide regular care, resulting in a 

substantial risk of physical harm. (In re Kadence P. (2015) 241 

Cal.App.4th 1376, 1385; In re Drake M. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th

754, 766-767.)
15

III. Dispositional order for parenting education

A dependency court has broad discretion to determine what 

is in the best interests of a child and to issue an appropriate 

dispositional order. (In re Baby Boy H. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th

470, 474.) The record here discloses no abuse of discretion.

Father had not previously had sole custody of the children. 

He had a history with the Department, including a sustained 

petition involving an unexplained subacute rib fracture sustained 

by Evelyn. Nathaniel disclosed that father disciplined him by 

hitting him with a belt on the hand and arm. Although father 

was supposed to complete a parenting class as part of a 2016 

voluntary family maintenance plan, he never did so. The juvenile 

court did not abuse its discretion by ordering father to complete a 

parenting program. 

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders 

are affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

____________________________, J.

CHAVEZ

We concur:

__________________________, Acting P. J.

ASHMANN-GERST

__________________________, J.

HOFFSTADT