Filed 5/30/24 In re J.G. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for 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 J.G., a Person Coming Under 

the Juvenile Court Law. B326648

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

T.D.,

Defendant and Appellant.

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. 

18CCJP00878C)

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles

County, Jean M. Nelson, Judge. Reversed. 

Suzanne M. Nicholson, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, and Veronica Randazzo, Deputy 

County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

T.D. (Mother) appeals the juvenile court’s order assuming

dependency jurisdiction over her infant son, J.G. (Minor). We are 

asked to decide whether substantial evidence supports the 

jurisdiction finding, which rests on the court’s conclusion that 

Minor was at risk from Mother’s methamphetamine abuse that 

led to a prior finding of dependency jurisdiction over one of 

Minor’s siblings.

1

 

I. BACKGROUND

A. Prior Pertinent Dependency History

In 2018, a juvenile court asserted dependency jurisdiction 

over Mother’s daughter, H.R., after sustaining allegations that 

Mother had a history of engaging in violent altercations in H.R.’s 

presence. During the investigation into those allegations, Mother 

admitted to a social worker from the Los Angeles County 

Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) 

that she had smoked crystal methamphetamine in the past; she, 

however, denied drug use at the time. The juvenile court 

ultimately terminated dependency jurisdiction over H.R. and 

granted her father sole legal and physical custody of the child. 

In 2020, the Department filed a dependency petition 

concerning Mother’s son, D.D., based (among other things) on 

evidence that he tested positive for amphetamines at birth and 

that Mother was an abuser of amphetamines and 

benzodiazepines who likewise tested positive for those substances 

the day D.D. was born. Mother pled no contest to the petition’s 

allegations and the juvenile court took jurisdiction over D.D. 

1 No findings were sustained as to Minor’s father, B.G. 

(Father), and he is not a party to this appeal. 
3

Mother was ordered to drug test weekly and to complete a drug 

and alcohol program of at least six months’ duration. In April 

2022, the juvenile court terminated reunification services for 

Mother in D.D.’s case.2 

B. These Dependency Proceedings 

1. The Department’s initial investigation 

In May 2022, a few days after Mother gave birth to Minor, 

the Department opened an investigation into his well-being. 

Minor was in the NICU being treated with precautionary 

antibiotics due to an aspect of Mother’s medical history. Minor

was doing well, and Mother was attentive when she visited. 

Mother and Minor tested negative for substances at Minor’s 

birth, and there were no concerns based on Mother’s actions at 

the hospital. The Department was apparently alerted to Minor’s 

birth because Mother told hospital staff she had two children but 

discussed only one. 

The Department interviewed Mother at the NICU. Mother 

did not understand why the Department was present or involved. 

She stated she was in compliance with court orders, the baby was 

well, and she was not under the influence. Mother also said the 

Department could not use her past against her. 

Paternal grandmother V.H. (Paternal Grandmother), who 

was also at the NICU, reported Mother and Father were living 

with Paternal Grandmother and Mother was doing fine. 

2 Mother filed a section 388 petition in D.D.’s case in October 

2022, alleging changed circumstances. The juvenile court 

granted a hearing on the petition, but the record in this appeal 

does not reveal how the court ultimately ruled on that petition. 
4

Paternal Grandmother also said she drove Mother to her courtordered services. 

When the Department social worker spoke to Father the 

following day, he denied having concerns regarding Minor’s 

safety or wellbeing. Father claimed Mother was no longer using 

drugs and was attending services. 

 The social worker assigned to D.D.’s case, however,

reported Mother had not been compliant with services and had 

been inconsistent in demonstrating behavioral changes to 

address the reasons the Department had an open case regarding 

D.D. The social worker reported the biggest concern was Mother 

not taking responsibility for her actions and lacking insight both 

as to the reasons her children were removed from her custody 

and as to how her actions affect their safety and well-being. 

Minor was released from the hospital and into Mother and 

Father’s care. The same day, the Department social worker 

asked them to test for drugs and alcohol. They were not able to 

test at the designated site that day, but they tested negative the 

next day. 

A Department social worker also undertook additional 

investigation concerning Mother’s progress with sobriety. Mother 

had been enrolled in a drug and alcohol program since November 

2021. A representative from the program agreed Mother needed 

to increase attendance and participation in services but also 

stated Mother had increased her attendance in the prior couple of 

months. Paternal Grandmother reported she had not seen 

Mother using drugs in her home. 

In July, Father reported having some relationship issues 

with Mother. He said he wanted Minor to remain in Paternal 

Grandmother’s home, but he claimed Mother was disrespecting 
5

household rules and threatening to leave with Minor. Around the 

same time, Mother asked the Department social worker for 

housing resources. 

2. The initial petition 

Although the Department found Minor was in good health 

and recommended he remain in his parents’ care, it nonetheless 

deemed him to be at “high” risk of future harm and neglect. 

The Department filed a two-count petition in July 2022, 

asking the juvenile court to assume jurisdiction over Minor under 

Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and 

(j).3 The petition alleged in the subdivision (b) count that Minor 

was at substantial risk of suffering physical harm due to his 

young age and Mother’s history of abusing amphetamines and 

benzodiazepines. The subdivision (j) count asserted Minor was at 

risk of harm in light of Mother’s inability to care for his halfsibling, D.D., as a result of her history of substance abuse. At the 

detention hearing, the juvenile court released Minor into his 

parents’ care under the Department’s supervision and ordered 

family preservation services for both parents, including drug 

testing. 

 

3. Further investigation 

Over the ensuing months, the Department continued to 

monitor the family. In September 2022, Mother claimed Father 

hit her in the face in April 2021 (before the initial detention 

hearing for Minor) and in July 2022 (after). Mother stated she 

3 Undesignated statutory references that follow are to the 

Welfare and Institutions Code. 
6

reported at least one domestic violence incident to the police and 

claimed some of the violence had been witnessed by paternal 

relatives. Mother also said that, as a result of a recent incident of 

abuse, Mother had taken Minor and left Paternal Grandmother’s 

home. Mother planned to stay with a friend until the social 

worker could help her get into a program for people with 

children. 

Discussing the drug abuse allegations, Mother asserted she 

did not think she should be testing anymore because she had by 

then completed her drug and alcohol program. Mother said the 

last time she used any drugs was in November 2020, on the day 

D.D. was born. Mother stated it was not right that the 

Department kept bringing up her prior drug use and asserted the 

hospital had given her benzodiazepines for pain.4 

The social worker also reviewed Mother’s recent drug test 

results and learned Mother tested negative six times and missed 

nine tests during the period from May 24, 2022, through August 

26, 2022.5 The social worker also verified Mother graduated from 

her six-month drug and alcohol program in August 2022 and was 

enrolled in domestic violence classes. 

4 The detention report from D.D.’s dependency case reflects 

that a doctor at the hospital where Mother delivered D.D. told a 

Department social worker that benzodiazepines are typically 

medications that treat anxiety, such as Ativan or Valium. 

5 The negative tests occurred on June 6, June 9, June 15, 

July 1, July 14, and August 11, 2022. The missed tests occurred 

on May 24, June 2, June 8, July 8, July 21, July 27, August 5,

August 17, and August 26, 2022. 
7

The social worker also interviewed other family members. 

Father expressed concern about Mother’s substance abuse, 

though he had never seen Mother use drugs. Father denied all of 

the allegations of domestic violence. Paternal Grandmother said 

she had no concerns about Mother using drugs or alcohol but

denied Mother’s allegations that Father had been abusive. 

Paternal Grandmother was, however, concerned that Mother did 

not know how to parent a baby (giving, as an example, Mother’s 

decision to feed Minor applesauce when he was two months old). 

S.H. (Paternal Great Aunt) also expressed concern about 

Mother’s parenting ability, opining she did not know how to take 

care of a baby and did not want to change his diaper. She 

claimed Mother had given Minor baby food when he was only a 

few days old. 

Mother denied giving Minor baby food, but she admitted 

she had given him baby cereal. When the social worker asked if 

Minor’s doctor had approved of Mother doing so, Mother stated 

he was supposed to start at 6 months, but Minor was still hungry 

when she gave him bottles so she gave him a little bit of baby 

cereal as well. 

In October 2022, the Department social worker reviewed 

Mother’s drug tests for the period from August 29, 2022, through 

October 18, 2022. Mother tested negative four times and missed 

five tests.6 Mother told the social worker she missed one test 

because she was on her period and missed two other tests 

because she was ill. 

6 The negative tests occurred on September 8, September 12, 

September 28, and October 5, 2022. The missed tests occurred on 

August 29, September 9, September 20, October 12, and October 

18, 2022. 
8

Mother additionally told a social worker that she had not 

had any contact with Father since leaving Paternal 

Grandmother’s home. Father, on the other hand, said he spoke 

to Mother regularly but he had not seen Minor since Mother left 

Paternal Grandmother’s home. 

Also in October 2022, the Department filed an amended 

dependency petition that added a new count, designated b-2, 

alleging Minor was at substantial risk of serious physical harm 

from Father’s domestic violence against Mother. By December of 

that year, Mother and Father had a schedule in place pursuant to 

which Mother cared for Minor during the week and Father cared 

for him over the weekend. The Department social worker 

reported Minor appeared to be developing well. 

Mother stated there had been no issues with Father since 

she moved out of Paternal Grandmother’s home. Mother 

continued to participate in domestic violence classes, and she had 

recently contacted her individual therapist to resume services. 

The social worker again reviewed Mother’s drug test results. 

During the period from October 27, 2022, through November 21, 

2022, Mother appeared for, and tested negative at, all five 

scheduled tests.7 Though the Department submitted requests to 

relevant police departments, it did not receive any police reports 

confirming Mother’s assertions of domestic violence. 

4. The jurisdiction hearing 

The juvenile court held a jurisdiction hearing in December 

2022. The court sustained counts b-1 and j-1, regarding Mother’s 

7 The negative tests occurred on October 27, November 3, 

November 7, November 14, and November 21, 2022. 
9

substance abuse and dismissed count b-2, regarding the domestic 

violence allegations. The court observed it was “very true” that 

Mother had made progress, but the court believed Mother had a 

“long history of a number of different problems” including 

substance abuse and an “inconsistency in her ability to follow 

through on services.” The court opined methamphetamine was “a 

type of drug that a parent can avoid for years and then they go 

back to it for some reason” and expressed concern that Mother 

was not testing consistently until recently. The juvenile court 

reiterated Mother was “making progress” but explained “the 

period of sobriety I need to see for somebody who’s had her 

reunification services terminated in the past . . . needs to be 

much more substantial than what we have here, where by 

September of this year I’m still worried she is not testing 

regularly. This is not to minimize Mother’s progress. It just 

means, given the number of risks, her history, what the 

Department shows, I need to be very sure she can maintain her 

sobriety, and I don’t have that.” 

The court released Minor to Mother and Father’s care, 

conditioned on Mother and Father not living together. Mother 

was ordered to participate in random drug and alcohol testing

and individual counseling. 

II. DISCUSSION

Although the substantial evidence standard of review is 

deferential (In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 633) and section 300, 

subdivision (j) provides the broadest grounds for asserting 

dependency jurisdiction over a child (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 

766, 774), there is still insufficient evidence of a substantial risk 

that Minor would be abused or neglected within the meaning of 
10

that subdivision.8 There were no concerns with Minor at birth 

that initially prompted the Department’s investigation. Then, 

over the ensuing six-plus months when Minor remained in 

Mother’s (and Father’s) care, Mother repeatedly tested negative 

for methamphetamine use, she completed a drug program, the 

Paternal Grandmother reported no reason to believe she was 

again using drugs, and Minor continued to be in good health and 

doing well. The best that can accordingly be said for the juvenile 

court’s jurisdiction finding is that Mother had a history of 

methamphetamine abuse, had several earlier missed drug tests 

and, in the opinion of one social worker assigned to D.D.’s case, 

lacked “insight.” (She also fed Minor some solid food apparently 

before that was indicated, but that was not an alleged ground for 

jurisdiction in the dependency petition and would not alter our 

conclusion in any event.) Those facts, in our view, are not 

substantial evidence of a risk of neglect or abuse that can support 

jurisdiction here.

A. Section 300, Subdivision (j)

Section 300, subdivision (j), authorizes a juvenile court to 

assume dependency jurisdiction over a child when the following 

two requirements are met: “[t]he child’s sibling has been abused 

or neglected, as defined in subdivision [(b)(1) or other 

8 Because the basis on which a juvenile court can assert 

jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (j), is broader than 

that under section 300, subdivision (b)(1), our analysis of the 

sufficiency of the evidence focuses on the subdivision (j) finding 

and we need not discuss the juvenile court’s subdivision (b)(1)

finding.
11

subdivisions], and there is a substantial risk that the child will be 

abused or neglected, as defined in those subdivisions.” (§ 300, 

subd. (j).) Under subdivision (b)(1), a child is a dependent child 

when “[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 . . . [¶] [t]he failure or inability of the child’s parent or 

guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child . . . .” 

(§ 300, subd. (b)(1)(A).) Our Supreme Court has recently 

emphasized that section 300, subdivision (b)(1) “allows for 

dependency jurisdiction based on substance abuse only when this 

abuse leads to an ‘inability’ on the part of a parent or guardian ‘to 

provide regular care for [a] child’ [citation] that causes the child 

to suffer, or creates ‘a substantial risk that the child will suffer, 

serious physical harm or illness’ [citation] . . . .” (In re N.R. 

(2023) 15 Cal.5th 520, 540.) “[E]xcessive use of drugs or alcohol 

[that] has other negative manifestations[, on the other 

hand,] . . . does not provide a basis for jurisdiction . . . .” (Ibid.) 

Our Supreme Court has also explained that, “[u]nlike the 

other subdivisions, subdivision (j) includes a list of factors for the

court to consider: ‘The court shall consider the circumstances 

surrounding the abuse or neglect of the sibling, the age and 

gender of each child, the nature of the abuse or neglect of the 

sibling, the mental condition of the parent or guardian, and any 

other factors the court considers probative in determining 

whether there is a substantial risk to the child.’ (§ 300, subd. (j).) 

‘The “nature of the abuse or neglect of the sibling” is only one of 

many factors that the court is to consider in assessing whether 

the child is at risk of abuse or neglect in the family home. 

Subdivision (j) thus allows the court to take into consideration 

factors that might not be determinative if the court were 
12

adjudicating a petition filed directly under one of those 

subdivisions. [¶] The broad language of subdivision (j) clearly 

indicates that the trial court is to consider the totality of the 

circumstances of the child and his or her sibling in determining 

whether the child is at substantial risk of harm, within the 

meaning of any of the subdivisions enumerated in subdivision (j). 

The provision thus accords the trial court greater latitude to 

exercise jurisdiction as to a child whose sibling has been found to 

have been abused than the court would have in the absence of 

that circumstance.’ [Citation.]” (I.J., supra, 56 Cal.4th at 774.) 

B. Substantial Evidence Does Not Support the Juvenile 

Court’s Dependency Finding

It is, of course, undisputed D.D. was adjudged a dependent 

of the juvenile court due to Mother’s substance abuse and D.D. 

and Minor were relatively close in age (D.D. is approximately 18 

months older). But that is where the similarities end. Minor, 

unlike D.D., was born without drugs in his system and hospital 

personnel reported no concerns about his well-being or Mother’s 

interaction with him. The Department was called nonetheless, 

and during the ensuing dependency proceedings, Mother reported 

she was not using methamphetamine, the Paternal Grandmother 

(who lived with Mother for a time) advised she had no concerns 

Mother was using drugs, Mother tested negative for 

methamphetamine use at least once per month (and never tested 

positive), and Mother completed a drug and alcohol program. In 

addition, during all this time, Minor remained in Mother’s care, 

and the Department documented no adverse effect on his health 

or well-being (including from Mother’s admitted decision to feed 

Minor some baby cereal before that was apparently indicated)—
13

and certainly no harm or risk of harm that would appear to be 

attributable to methamphetamine use.

That, of course, leaves the drug tests that Mother did miss, 

but considering those missed tests in light of the entirety of her 

testing schedule and the other evidence in the record, we are not 

persuaded the missed tests provide a sufficient basis for 

dependency jurisdiction. Indeed, a contrary holding on this 

record would mean dependency jurisdiction would automatically 

attach to any subsequent children that are born to a parent who 

suffered a previous adverse substance abuse dependency 

finding—at least absent a perfect or near-perfect substance abuse 

testing record over the course of, perhaps, multiple years.

9

 We 

cannot accept that view, particularly in light of our Supreme 

Court’s recent emphasis that the touchstone for a substance 

abuse risk-based dependency finding (albeit one predicated on 

section 300, subdivision (b)(1) directly) is evidence of an inability 

to provide regular care that creates a substantial risk of physical 

harm or illness, not mere negative manifestations of drug abuse

or questionable parenting decisions. (N.R., supra, 15 Cal.5th at 

540.)

We shall therefore reverse the juvenile court’s finding of 

dependency jurisdiction. We caution, however, that the reversal 

is based on the state of the appellate record before us. If there 

have been significant developments concerning Minor’s welfare or 

Mother’s sobriety that post-date the December 2022 jurisdiction 

9 As we have already recounted, the juvenile court opined 

methamphetamine was a drug that a parent could return to 

abusing after “years” of sobriety and stated it needed to be “very 

sure [Mother] can maintain her sobriety.” 
14

hearing from which this appeal is taken, our disposition will 

permit the juvenile court to take those into account.

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s jurisdiction order is reversed. The 

cause is remanded with directions to hold a new jurisdiction 

hearing as soon as possible, consistent with the right of all sides 

to prepare their case. If, at the new jurisdiction hearing, there 

are no new significant developments (i.e., events or circumstances

that did not exist at the time of the order under review in this 

appeal), the juvenile court shall enter a new and different order 

dismissing the July 18, 2022, dependency petition. If the court 

finds there are new developments that warrant a ruling other 

than dismissal of the July 18, 2022, dependency petition, the 

court shall make any necessary findings and orders and do so in a 

manner sufficient to permit appellate review of that conclusion.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

BAKER, Acting P. J.

We concur:

MOOR, J. LEE, J.*

*

Judge of the San Bernardino County Superior Court, 

assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to Article VI, section 6 of 

the California Constitution.