Filed 3/14/13 In re J.W. CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

In re J.W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

___________________ __________________ LOS ANGELES COUN TY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
A.W.,
Defendant and Appellant. B241775
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK91937)

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Terry T. Truong, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed. Thomas S. Szakall, under appointmen t by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. John F. Krattli, Acting County Couns el, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, Jessica S. Mitchell, Associate Count y Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________________2 A.W. (mother) appeals jurisdictional fi ndings and dispositional orders entered with respect to her now 13-year-old son, J.W. Mother contends the jurisdictional finding and the order removing J.W. from her care ar e not supported by substantial evidence. We reject these claims and affirm the orders of the juvenile court.
FACTS AND PR OCEDURAL BA CKGROUND
1. Referral and detention

. On November 28, 2011, th e Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) received a referral indica ting J.W. frequently was absent from school
and had not attended for some time. After mother told th e referring party she could not physically drag J.W. to school, the referring party made a home visit to ask J.W. why he did not attend school. J.W. made no eye co ntact during the interview and “just moaned while sitting in a chair.” The home was unsan itary, cluttered and smelled of pet urine. Mother appeared to be under the influence duri ng the home visit. Mo ther stated maternal grandmother is an alcoholic who emotionally abuses J.W. by calling him names. Mother and maternal grandmother “constantly argue” and mother admitted J.W. might not want
to attend school in order to st ay home to protect mother. On December 6, 2011, a social worker interviewed J.W. at school. J.W. indicated he had been “sick for a long time and had to stay at home.” However, J.W. was unable to identify his illness, shrugged when the social worker asked what made him ill and
indicated he did not see a doctor for the illness. J.W. indicated he went to Hawaii with mother for a while but did not respond when the social worker asked about making up school assignments. J.W. denied emotional a buse by mother, denied criminal activity or
substance abuse in the home and denied that mother acted sad or “weird.” However, J.W. admitted maternal grandmother called him names when she was drunk and he feels the need to protect mother from maternal grandmother. J.W. indicated maternal grandmother drank every day of the week, except Wednesday when she works a double
shift. The social worker noted J.W. failed to make eye contact and was visibly depressed
as he disclosed his concerns about the home.3 Also on December 6, 2011, J.W.’s academic counselor told the social worker J.W.
had been absent for more than 30 days. Although the co unselor left messages for mother inquiring about J.W., mother did not respo nd. The counselor and campus aide Saenz visited the home and found it unsanitary. Moth er appeared to be under the influence, failed to maintain eye contact, continuous ly played with her hair and giggled inappropriately. Mother told the counselor mate rnal grandmother is an alcoholic who constantly intimidates J.W. and is verbally abusive to the child. Mother was evasive
about the child’s absences and stated she assumed J.W. wanted to stay home to protect mother from maternal grandmother’s verbal abuse. Campus aide Saenz told the social worker he observed J.W. “g runting throughout
the visit.” J.W. also rock ed and looked to the ground when asked about school
attendance. Saenz had never seen J.W. demonstrate such behavior at school. The detention report indicated mother ha d been arrested on July 22, 2011, for possession of a controlled subs tance and being under the influence of a controlled substance. The police report indicated moth er’s vehicle was stopped because a passenger had been involved in a petty theft. When officers stopped the car, the suspect no longer
was in the vehicle but mother appeared to be under the infl uence and the officers found methamphetamine in mother’s wallet. Mother refused to drug test but wrote a statement
in which she admitted she had smoked methamphetamine a few hours earlier, she was “new at smoking” methamphetamine and she wanted to stop. Mother wrote, “I accidentally left a small baggie of me thamphetamine inside my wallet which was inside my purse.” Mother’s female pa ssenger also was under the influence and in possession of methamphetamine. On August 17, 2011, mother resolved the criminal case by entering a deferred entry of judgment program.
The social worker was not able to interview mother until January 6, 2012.
The social worker found the ho me cluttered and malodorous. “The carpet appeared to be urine soaked and extremely dirty.” Mother indicated J.W. missed a week of school due to the flu and, when he got better, he did not want to retu rn and mother could not force him to attend. Mother admitted maternal gr andmother called J.W. na mes, such as fat,4 lazy and stupid. Mother protected J.W. by standing between mate rnal grandmother and J.W. or by locking themselves in a bedr oom or going to a mo tel when maternal grandmother was out of control. Mother indicated maternal grandmother usually got drunk 5 to 7 days a week and only refrain ed from drinking on Wednesdays. Mother indicated she was unemployed and was financ ially compelled to live with maternal grandmother. During the interview, mother pl ayed with her hair, smiled inappropriately and appeared nonchalant concerning the conditi on of the home. Mother agreed to drug test but stated she could not test that day because she had to attend a funeral. Mother
stated the whereabouts of J.W .’s father were unknown. In an interview conducted February 1, 2012, maternal grandmother admitted she did not get along with mother, yelled at J.W. and drank alco hol but denied drinking to intoxication. Maternal grandmother indicate d J.W. had resided with her since a young age and she yells at him when he does not co mplete his chores. Maternal grandmother believed mother was using methamphetamine with her boyfriend a nd is “too high” to
attend to J.W. On February 7, 2012, at a team deci sion-making meeting a ttended by mother, maternal grandmother, maternal uncle and severa l social workers, moth er denied that she had used drugs more than once. Maternal grandmother reiterated her belief mother uses methamphetamine with her new boyfriend. Ma ternal uncle indicated he believed mother had been using drugs for seve ral months. At the conclusion of the meeting, mother consented to placement of J.W. with matern al uncle and stated she would enroll in a residential treatment program. On February 21, 2012, the Department filed a depend ency petition alleging J.W.
was at substantial risk of harm due to mothe r’s history of illicit drug use, her current use of methamphetamine, the filthy condition of mother’s home and mate rnal grandmother’s
access to the child. At the dete ntion hearing, the juvenile c ourt ordered J.W. to remain with maternal uncle and ordered the Depart ment to provide moth er referrals for an approved drug reha bilitation program and orde red mother to drug test on a weekly basis and to participate in i ndividual counseling.5 2. Jurisdiction report. When interviewed for the ju risdiction report, J.W. stat ed he never saw mother drink or smoke anything that caused her to act differently, he felt safe in mother’s care
and he wanted to be returned to mother. Mother claimed she “literally” used me thamphetamine only once about a year ago
when she was arrested. Moth er stated the police lied about finding drugs in mother’s possession and claimed the officers dictat ed the statement mother wrote.
Maternal uncle stated mother used drugs “in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s” and
admitted to him in 2011 she again was “dabbling” in meth amphetamine. Maternal uncle reported mother’s current boyfriend is a “dru g user” and, after mother recently started using drugs again, she lost her job, her car and now has lost her son. Maternal uncle opined mother’s drug diversion program was not working, as mother “c ontinues to use.” An interim review report filed May 9, 20 12, detailed the difficulty the Department had encountered in maintaining contact with mother and indicate d mother failed to submit to on-demand tests on the day of the in itial interview, and on two other occasions. A multidisciplinary assessment of J.W. indica ted mother was not co operative and did not
return the evaluator’s phone calls. The Department indicated mother had not been compliant with J.W.’s case plan and faile d to maintain regular contact with the Department.
3. Adjudication and disposition

. On May 9, 2012, the soci al worker testified mother tested negative on April 9, 2012, but failed to test on April 19, and May 2, 2012, after messages were left at the phone number mother had provided. The social worker was concerned mother currently was using drugs based on mother’s failure to maintain contact with the Department and the missed test s. The only time mother cont acted the Department after
the initial interview was to l eave a new cell phone number. The social worker was not certain what was “going on” with mother but was concerned.6 Mother testified she last us ed drugs about a year ago. Mother denied smoking methamphetamine or refusing to drug test on th e day of her arrest in June of 2011, and denied that drugs were found in her purse. Mo ther entered a plea in that case on advice of counsel and was placed on probation with a 20-week drug diversion program which mother had completed. Mother deni ed she ever had a drug problem. Regarding the arrest in June of 2011, mo ther testified the po lice found drugs and drug paraphernalia in the possession of mothe r’s friend but not mother. Mother no longer lives with maternal grandmothe r and has no plans to return to her home. Mother enrolled in a parenting class at the end of March 20 12 and has attended several sessions. Mother visited J.W. once since the last court date, ci ting the distance involv ed. Mother currently was staying with friends and was “technically ” homeless. Mother did not receive the letters regarding drug testing sent to her by the Department and does not have a telephone. Mother is not currently enrolled in any drug program. Counsel for the Department asked the juve nile court to sustain the petition, citing mother’s admission in the police report of July 22, 2011, that she used methamphetamine. J.W.’s counsel argued there was no proof mother currently was using drugs or that J.W.
was at risk in mother’s care. Mother’s counsel asserted ther e was no current risk to J.W., noting mother completed a diversion program, there was no evidence mother currently uses drugs and mother had moved fro m maternal grandmother’ home. The juvenile court struck the allega tion mother is a current user of methamphetamine but sustained counts b-1 and b-3 as amended an d declared J.W. a dependent within the mean ing of Welfare and Institu tions Code section 300, subdivision (b). 1 Count b-1 alleged mother’s hist ory of illicit drug use renders mother incapable of providing regular care and supervision and places J.W. at risk of harm. Count b-3 alleged mother established an e ndangering home enviro nment by allowing

1 Subsequent unspecified statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.7 maternal grandmother, a current abuser of al cohol who frequently is under the influence
of alcohol in the child’s presence, to have unlimite d access to the child. The juvenile court rejected mother’s as sertion she did not write the statement attached to the police report and found mother was either under the influence of drugs
when she wrote the statement “or she’s lying to me today.” The juvenile court noted “various individuals” in mother’s life “suspe ct she uses [drugs].” The juvenile court questioned why mother was not drug testing and concluded th ere were insufficient test results to conclude mother was not using drugs. The juvenile court found, by clear and convincing evidence, there was a substantial danger if J.W. were returned to mother and there were no reasonable means by which to protect the child absent removal. The juvenile court ordered the Department to provide mother family reunification services , including random drug testing, individual counseling and conjoint counse ling if recommended by J.W.’s therapist. The juvenile court granted mother unmonitored visitation if mother consistently wa s testing negative. Due to mother’s telephone situation, the juven ile court ordered mother to test randomly by calling the testing facility daily. The juven ile court ordered the Department to provide mother housing and transportation assistance.
CONTENTIONS Mother contends the jurisdictional findings are not supported by substantial
evidence and there were reasonable means ava ilable to protect J.W. without removing him from mother’s custody.
DISCUSSION
1. The jurisdictional findings are su pported by substantial evidence

.

a. Standard of review

. At a jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court determines by a preponderance of
the evidence whether th e child named in the petition falls within any of the categories specified in section 300. ( Cynthia D. v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 242, 248;
In re Michael D. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1082 ; § 355, subd. (a).) Section 300, subdivision (b) permits dependency jurisdiction, as relevant here, when “[t]he child has8 suffered, or there is a substan tial 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 willful or negligent failure of the child’s parent or guardian . . . to provide the child with adequa te food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment, 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.” (§ 300, subd. (b).) To find jurisdiction under section 300, th e juvenile court must determine whether circumstances at the time of the hearing subj ect the child to the de fined risk of harm. ( In re Adam D. (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1261; In re Janet T. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 377, 388.) Evidence of past events may ha ve a probative value in finding jurisdiction, but only if circumstances existing at the time of the hearing make it lik ely the child in the future will suffer the same type of serious physical harm or illness as alleged in the petition. ( In re Janet T., supra, at p. 388.) In reviewing a juvenile court’s jurisdic tional finding, we a pply the substantial evidence test. ( In re David M. (2005) 134 Cal.Ap p.4th 822, 828.)
b. Count b-1

. Mother contends her history of drug abuse did not pose a risk of serious physical harm to J.W. Mother notes her arrest on July 22, 2011, preceded the adjudication by nine
months and there was no evidence mother used any illicit substance after that incident. Further, in light of the juvenile court’s fi nding there was no evid ence mother currently was using drugs, there was no evidence of any current risk of harm. Mother notes J.W.
told the social worker he was not aware of any drug use or strange behavior by mother, no drugs were found in mother’s home an d mother never tested positive.
Mother concludes there was no nexus be tween mother’s drug history and any future risk to J.W. ( In re J.O. (2009) 178 Cal.App. 4th 139,152.) “Perceptions of risk, rather than actual evid ence of risk, do not suffice as substantial evidence.” ( In re James R. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 129, 137 Th us, the finding J.W. was at risk of serious physical harm due to mother’s hi story of drug use cons tituted speculation.9 Mother additionally claims the record indicates mother’s difficulty in communicating with the Department with resp ect to drug testing wa s due to poverty, specifically, the lack of a cell phone. Moth er testified she relied on borrowed cell phones to maintain contact with the Department. Mother claims the Department repeatedly failed to arrange for mother’s drug tests a nd mother appeared for drug tests only due to her own efforts in contacting the test facility. Thus, the finding mother failed to drug test was not based on specific evid ence showing future risk. Mother’s arguments are not persuasive. The evidence showed mother admitted to maternal uncle that she had a history of drug abuse in the 1980’s and 1990’s and she again began “dabbling” in drugs, including methamphetamine, in 2011. Maternal uncle told the social worker that, after mother commenced drug ab use in 2011, mother lost her car and her job. Also, mother was arre sted for possession of methamphetamine on July 22, 2011, and maternal grandmothe r repeatedly reported mother used methamphetamine with her new b oyfriend and neglected J.W. Additionally, J.W.’s school counselor and the campus aide who went to mother’s home both indicated mother ap peared to be under the influence during the visit. Similarly, during the initial interview, the so cial worker thought mother was under the influence. Mother’s neglect of J.W. was evid ent in that he missed more than a month of school and his home was filthy. Although mo ther claimed J.W. had been ill, he did not see a doctor and he avoided school to prot ect mother from maternal grandmother. Based on this record, the juvenile cour t reasonably could conclude mother’s neglect of J.W. was attributable to mother’s drug use and that mother’s substance abuse continued to place J.W. at risk of harm. With respect to drug testing, the juvenile court ordered mother to drug test weekly at the detention hearing. In spite of this order, mother failed to drug test regularly and failed to maintain contact with the Department . Mother blames her failure to test on her poverty which prevented her from having acce ss to a cell phone. However, given that mother recently had completed a drug divers ion program, the juve nile court reasonably10 could conclude mother was aware of drug tes ting protocol and that she orchestrated the Department’s inability to contact her in order to avoid drug testing. In sum, the finding that mo ther's history of drug abus e posed a risk of serious physical harm to J.W. is supported by the record.

c. Count b-3. Mother contends the finding mother “establ ished a detrimental and an endangering home environment” by allowing maternal gr andmother access to J.W. did not support jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b). Mother cont ends maternal grandmother’s
verbal and emotional abuse of J. W. is not jurisdictional. ( In re Daisy H . (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 713, 715.) Further, mother no longer resided in maternal grandmother’s home. Thus, the jurisdictional fi nding in b-3 must be reversed. Given that count b-1 is supported by subs tantial evidence, we need not address
mother’s contention with re spect to count b-3. When a dependency petition alleges multiple grounds for asserting jurisdiction, a reviewing court can affirm the finding of jurisdiction if any one of the statutory bases for jurisdiction enumerated in the petition is supported by substantial evidence. ( In re I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.Ap p.4th 1484, 1492; D.M. v. Superior Court (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1127; In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 451; In re Shelley J. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 322, 330 [declining to address remaining allegations afte r one allegation found supported]; Randi R. v. Superior
Court (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 67, 72; In re Jonathan B. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 873, 875.) However, the evidence also supports count b-3. Mother contends count b-3 alleged no more than emotional abuse, which is not jurisdictional. However, the record permitted the juvenile court to conclude maternal grandmother not only called J.W. names, but also threatened physical harm to the child in
that mother had to interven e to protect J.W. from mate rnal grandmother either by standing between them or by taking J.W. to a locked bedroom or a motel. The risk of a physical confrontation duri ng one of maternal grandm other’s drunken rages was
sufficient to warrant the conclusion J.W. was at risk of harm due to mother’s failure to11 protect him from maternal grandmother. Th us, jurisdiction also was proper under
count b-3.
2. The order removing J.W. from moth er’s custody is supported by
substantial evidence. The standard for removal of a child from pa rental custody is found in section 361, subdivision (c) which provides , in relevant part, “A depe ndent child may not be taken from the physical custody of [a parent] with whom the child resides at the time the petition was initiated, unless the juvenile court finds clear a nd convincing evidence . . . [t]here is or would be a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor if the minor were returned home, and there are no reasonable means by which the minor ’s physical health can be protected without removing the minor from the minor’s parent’s or guardian’s physical custody.” (§ 361, subd. (c).) “The parent need not be dangerous and the child need not have been actually harmed for removal to be appropriate. The fo cus of the statute is on averting harm to the child. [Citations.] In this regard, the court may consider the parent’s past conduct as well as present circumstances. [Citation.]” ( In re Cole C. (2009) 174 Ca l.App.4th 900, 917.) Although the juvenile court’s findi ngs must be based on clear and convincing evidence, we review an orde r removing a child from parent al custody for substantial evidence. ( In re J.K. (2009) 174 Cal.Ap p.4th 1426, 1433; In re Henry V. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 522, 529.) Mother contends that, at the time of th e disposition, she no longer resided with maternal grandmother, thereby eliminating the risk of verbal abuse by maternal grandmother. She also claims homelessness is an insufficient ba sis upon which to remove a child from parental custody. ( In re G.S.R. (2008) 159 Cal.App. 4th 1202, 1210.) Mother claims the juvenile cour t should have ordered the Depa rtment to assist mother to obtain housing.12 However, J.W. was not removed from mother’s care due to mother’s homelessness. Rather, mother’s drug abuse ca used her to neglect J.W. and exposed J.W. to maternal grandmother’s alcoholism and verbal abuse. J.W. missed 30 days of school, was not provided medical care when he had a flu that lasted a week and he lived in a filthy home environment. Mother denied drug abuse and failed to appreciate the neglect to which J.W. had been exposed . Mother does not assert wh at reasonable alternative the juvenile court might have employed in this case to avoid removal from mother’s care other than to assert the juvenile court shou ld have ordered the De partment to provide mother housing assistance. Given that mo ther failed to maintain contact with the Department, it is unlikely such an order woul d have had an impact on the situation. In any event, the juvenile court did order the De partment to assist mother with housing.
DISPOSITION
The orders under review are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

KLEIN, P. J.

We concur:

KITCHING, J.

ALDRICH, J.