Filed 5/14/15 In re Isabella A. CA4/3 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION THREE 

In re ISABELLA A., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law. 

ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES 

AGENCY, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

LUCY A., 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 G051173 

 (Super. Ct. No. DP024968) 

 O P I N I O N 

 Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Dennis J. 

Keough, Judge. Affirmed. 

 Jacob I. Olson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant. 

 Nicholas S. Chrisos, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Jeannie Su, 

Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

* * * 
2

 Lucy A. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s dispositional judgment 

ordering family maintenance services (Welf. & Inst. Code, §360, subd. (b), all statutory 

further citations are this code).1 Mother contends there was insufficient evidence to show 

there was a substantial risk of harm to her daughter Isabella A. (born in April 2014). For 

the reasons expressed below, we affirm. 

I 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

 The Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) filed a petition in May 

2014 alleging Isabella came within the juvenile court’s jurisdiction under section 300, 

subdivision (b), because she had suffered, or was at risk of suffering, serious physical 

harm resulting from her parents’ failure or inability to supervise and protect her, and her 

parents lacked the ability to provide regular care due to their substance abuse. 

Specifically, the petition alleged that while pregnant with Isabella mother tested positive 

for amphetamine, methamphetamine and marijuana when admitted to the hospital with 

pregnancy complications, Isabella was born prematurely (34 weeks, or six weeks early), 

Isabella’s meconium contained amphetamine and marijuana, and mother had not sought 

regular prenatal care. Mother had a criminal history, including assaultive offenses and 

driving under the influence. The father, James F., had a history of drug-related offenses.2 

Mother stated she had a medical marijuana card and had used marijuana three or four 

times during the pregnancy, but had not informed her obstetrician. Mother could not 

explain why she tested positive for methamphetamine. 

 1 Section 360 provides “(b) If the court finds that the child is a person 

described by Section 300, it may, without adjudicating the child a dependent child of the 

court, order that services be provided to keep the family together and place the child and 

the child’s parent or guardian under the supervision of the social worker for a time period 

consistent with Section 301.” 

2 Father did not participate in the juvenile court proceedings and has not 

appealed. 
3

 At the detention hearing, the court ordered substance abuse testing for the 

parents, paternity testing, and monitored visits for mother once Isabella was released 

from the hospital. SSA subsequently placed the child in the maternal grandmother’s 

home, and granted mother liberal visitation. 

 On June 10, 2014, mother tested positive for amphetamine and 

methamphetamine, but denied using these drugs. We discuss other facts relevant to our 

disposition in section II. 

 The juvenile court conducted the jurisdiction hearing on various dates in 

September through December 2014. The court admitted SSA’s initial and addendum 

reports into evidence, and heard testimony from mother and the social worker. The court 

found Isabella was at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness based 

on her mother’s unresolved substance abuse. At disposition, the court refrained from 

declaring Isabella a dependent child of the court, and ordered family maintenance 

services under the supervision of the social worker (§ 360, subd. (b)). 

II 

DISCUSSION

Substantial Evidence Supports the Jurisdictional Finding

 Mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the 

jurisdictional finding there was a substantial risk Isabella would suffer serious physical 

harm or illness. We conclude ample evidence supports the court’s decision. 

 Section 300, subdivision (b)(1), requires the juvenile court to exercise 

jurisdiction where “[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, or . . . by the inability of 

the parent or guardian to provide regular care for the child due to the parent’s or 

guardian’s . . . substance abuse.” 
4

 We review the jurisdictional finding for substantial evidence, which is 

defined as evidence that is “‘reasonable, credible, and of solid value. . . .’” (In re Angelia 

P. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 908, 924.) The substantial evidence standard poses a difficult hurdle 

for an appellant. “If there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, 

which will support the judgment, we must affirm.” (In re Tracy Z. (1987) 

195 Cal.App.3d 107, 113.) A reviewing court is in no position to judge the credibility of 

witnesses or reweigh the evidence, and therefore must resolve all evidentiary conflicts in 

favor of the juvenile court’s findings. (In re L. Y. L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 947; In 

re Nada R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1166, 1177.) 

 Here, the record reflects mother tested positive for amphetamine, 

methamphetamine and marijuana at the time of Isabella’s premature birth. Isabella’s 

meconium indicated she had been exposed to drugs in utero. Mother initially denied any 

drug use, but later admitted using medical marijuana during Isabella’s pregnancy. 

Mother could not explain why she tested positive for methamphetamine and denied ever 

using the drug. Mother suggested her daily use of Sudafed could explain her positive 

drug tests, but a public health nurse stated Sudafed could not account for a positive 

methamphetamine test. 

 Mother testified she told her obstetrician she was taking Sudafed and 

ephedrine, although she earlier had told the social worker she had not informed the 

doctor. The obstetrician stated mother’s drug use could have caused a rise in blood 

pressure leading to preterm labor. Mother claimed she received regular prenatal care 

after finding out she was pregnant in October 2013, but the obstetrician’s office stated 

mother had been late in seeking prenatal care and was not seen in the office until early 

January 2014. Although mother asserted she would do whatever was necessary to 

reunify with Isabella, she refused to sign a release of information for medical records so 

the social worker could verify and evaluate her marijuana authorization and need for 

treatment. 
5

 In early May, a nurse in the neonatal intensive care unit reported Isabella 

had difficulty feeding and consumed only 10 to 15 percent of her formula. The nurse 

stated this could be due to drug use during pregnancy, but a definitive cause was 

unknown. 

 Mother missed a drug test on June 7, 2014. On June 10, 2014, she 

voluntarily tested at a facility of her own choosing and tested positive for amphetamine 

and methamphetamine. About five hours later, she took another drug test and tested 

positive for amphetamine. Mother again attributed the positive amphetamine test to 

taking Sudafed, but a lab technician stated even a large quantity of Sudafed could not 

have accounted for the positive test. Mother missed another drug test on June 12, 2014. 

She had a positive test for alcohol on June 24, 2014, but drug tests after June 10 were 

negative. Mother testified at the jurisdiction hearing she assumed her drug tests were 

negative “because I do not do drugs.”3 

 Based on this record the juvenile court had little choice but to find mother 

had an unresolved substance abuse problem posing a risk of serious harm to Isabella at 

the time of the jurisdiction hearing. (In re Drake M. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 754, 767 

[for children under six years old, finding of substance abuse is prima facie evidence of 

the inability of a parent or guardian to provide regular care resulting in a substantial risk 

of harm].) As the court noted, despite knowing she had a high-risk pregnancy with 

significant risk factors, mother chose to abuse drugs. This posed a significant risk of 

substantial harm to the child in utero. Mother delayed seeking prenatal care, lied to the 

social worker about when she first obtained care, and failed to disclose her drug use to 

her obstetrician. Her desire to breastfeed Isabella even though she was using 

methamphetamine and alcohol demonstrates her inability to recognize the risk her 

substance abuse posed to her child. Based on mother’s drug use during the pregnancy 

 3 For the most part, mother invoked her Fifth Amendment right not to answer 

questions addressing drug use. 
6

and thereafter, issues concerning prenatal care, and mother’s questionable credibility 

concerning drug use and prenatal care, the juvenile court reasonably could conclude 

mother’s decisionmaking was impaired and Isabella was at substantial risk of physical 

harm or illness. 

 Although mother completed programs recommended by the social worker 

before the jurisdiction hearing concluded in December 2014, including a parenting class 

and substance abuse treatment, ample evidence supports the juvenile court’s conclusion 

an insufficient period of time had elapsed to mitigate the risk of harm. Indeed, mother’s 

continued denial of drug use called into question whether she had gained the insight 

needed to safely parent Isabella without continuing supervision. The court did not err in 

denying mother’s motion to dismiss (§ 350, subd. (c)), and substantial evidence supports 

the court’s finding under section 300, subdivision (b). 

III 

DISPOSITION

 The judgment is affirmed. 

 

 ARONSON, ACTING P. J. 

WE CONCUR: 

IKOLA, J. 

THOMPSON, J.