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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SO CIAL 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, Co unty Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Jeannie Su, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * *2 Lucy A. (mother) appeals from the j uvenile 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 evid ence to show
there was a substantial risk of harm to her da ughter Isabella A. (born in April 2014). For the reasons expressed below, we affirm.
I
F ACTS AND P ROCEDURAL B ACKGROUND The Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) filed a petition in May 2014 alleging Isabella came within the juveni le court’s jurisdicti on under section 300, subdivision (b), because she had suffered, or was at risk of suffering, serious physical harm resulting from her parents’ failure or in ability 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 pre gnant with Isabella mo ther tested positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine and mariju ana when admitted to the hospital with pregnancy complications, Isabella was born pr ematurely (34 weeks, or six weeks early),
Isabella’s meconium containe d amphetamine and marijuana, and mother had not sought regular prenatal care. Mother had a crimin al history, including a ssaultive offenses and driving under the influence. The father, James F., had a hist ory of drug-related offenses. 2
Mother stated she had a medi cal marijuana card and had us ed marijuana three or four times during the pregnancy, but had not info rmed her obstetrician . Mother could not explain why she tested positiv e for methamphetamine.

1 Section 360 provides “(b) If the c ourt finds that the child is a person described by Section 300, it may, without ad judicating the child a de pendent child of the court, order that services be provided to keep th e 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 vi sits 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 te sted positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine, but denied us ing these drugs. We discuss other facts relevant to our disposition in section II. The juvenile court conducted the juri sdiction hearing on various dates in September through December 2014. The court admitted SSA’s initial and addendum reports into evidence, and he ard testimony from mother and the social worker. The court
found Isabella was at substan tial risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness based
on her mother’s unresolved subs tance abuse. At disposition, the court refrained from declaring Isabella a dependent child of th e court, and ordered family maintenance services under the supervision of the social worker (§ 360, subd. (b)).
II
D ISCUSSION Substantial Evidence Supports the Jurisdictional Finding Mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jurisdictional finding there was a substantial ri sk Isabella would suff er serious physical harm or illness. We conclude ample ev idence supports the court’s decision. Section 300, subdivision (b)(1), requi res the juvenile court to exercise jurisdiction where “[t]he child has suffered, or there is a s ubstantial 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 adequate ly supervise or protect the ch ild, or . . . by the inability of the parent or guardian to provide regular ca re 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 substantia l evidence standard poses a difficult hurdle for an appellant. “If there is any substantia l evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, which will support the judgme nt, 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 therefor e must resolve all evid entiary 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 pos itive for methamphetamine and denied ever using the drug. Mother sugg ested her daily use of Sudafed could explain her positive drug tests, but a public health nurse stat ed Sudafed could not account for a positive methamphetamine test.
Mother testified she told her obst etrician she was taking Sudafed and ephedrine, although she earlier had told th e 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 la bor. Mother claimed she rece ived regular prenatal care after finding out she was pregnant in October 2013, but the obstetrici an’s office stated
mother had been late in seek ing 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 refu sed 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 cons umed only 10 to 15 percent of her formula. The nurse
stated this could be due to drug use during pr egnancy, but a de finitive cause was
unknown. Mother missed a drug test on June 7, 2014. On Ju ne 10, 2014, she voluntarily tested at a facility of her own choosing and tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine. About five hours late r, she took another dr ug test and tested positive for amphetamine. Mother again attr ibuted the positive amphetamine test to taking Sudafed, but a lab tec hnician stated even a large quantity of Sudafed could not have accounted for the positive test. Mother mi ssed another drug test on June 12, 2014. She had a positive test for alco hol 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 c ourt had little choice but to find mother had an unresolved substance abuse problem posin g a risk of serious harm to Isabella at the time of the jurisdiction hearing. ( In re Drake M. (2012) 211 Cal.Ap p.4th 754, 767 [for children under six years old, finding of substance abuse is prima facie evidence of the inability of a parent or guar dian to provide regular care resulting in a substantial risk of harm].) As the court noted, despite k nowing she had a high-risk pregnancy with significant risk factors, mother chose to abus e drugs. This posed a significant risk of
substantial harm to the child in utero. Moth er 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 breast feed Isabella even though she was using methamphetamine and alcohol demonstrates her inability to recognize the risk her substance abuse posed to her child. Base d on mother’s drug use during the pregnancy

3 For the most part, mo ther invoked her Fifth Amendment right not to answer questions addressing drug use.6 and thereafter, issues concerni ng prenatal care, and moth er’s questionable credibility concerning drug use and prenatal care, th e juvenile court reas onably could conclude mother’s decisionmaking was impaired and Isab ella was at substantial risk of physical
harm or illness. Although mother completed program s 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 Isabe lla without continuing supervisi on. The court did not err in denying mother’s motion to di smiss (§ 350, subd. (c)), and su bstantial evidence supports the court’s finding under sect ion 300, subdivision (b).
III
D ISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

ARONSON, ACTING P. J.

WE CONCUR:

IKOLA, J.

THOMPSON, J.