Filed 6/30/2022 In re A.L. CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re A.L. et al.,

Persons Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law.

 B313919

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 20CCJP03434)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

KARLA E.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, Debra R. Archuleta, Judge. Affirmed.

Cristina Gabrielidis, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
2

Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, and Peter A. Ferrera, Deputy County 

Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_____________________

Mother Karla E. appeals from the juvenile court’s 

March 12, 2021, dispositional orders removing her three children, 

A.L., David S. Jr. (David), and D.S. from her custody, due, in 

part, to Mother’s substance abuse. Mother argues there was 

insufficient evidence to demonstrate a substantial risk of injury 

to the children, especially in light of the fact that between 

February 2021 and the dispositional hearing the following month, 

she was able to care for a newborn son, Da.,1 without incident. 

Neither A.L.’s father, Clifton L., or David and D.S.’s father, David 

S. Sr. (David Sr.), is a party to this appeal.

We conclude the juvenile court did not err in removing the 

children from Mother’s custody. The record demonstrates 

Mother’s longstanding and continuing use of methamphetamines. 

In 2014, she tested positive for methamphetamines at A.L.’s 

birth. She tested positive for methamphetamines again in 2017 

at David’s birth. Then, during the pendency of these dependency 

proceedings and her pregnancy with Da., Mother tested positive 

for methamphetamines. Thereafter, she never took another drug 

test, missing over 20 appointments. Mother also did not enroll in 

any substance abuse or parenting programs that were made 

available to her, and she did not permit the Los Angeles County 

Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) to assess 

1 Neither the appellate record or the briefs state Da.’s last 

name.
3

her newborn son or residence. Thus, sufficient evidence supports

the juvenile court’s findings of a substantial risk of injury to the 

children if they remained in Mother’s custody and that there 

were no alternatives to removal. Accordingly, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The Family

Mother has five children: daughter F.M.2 (born 2007),

daughter A.L. (born 2014), son David (born 2017), son D.S. (born 

2019), and son Da. (born 2021). Only A.L., David, and D.S. are 

subjects of this appeal.

B. Child Welfare History

Between 2009 and August 2019, there were at least eight 

child welfare referrals in Washington State relating to F.M., A.L., 

David, or D.S. The referrals were generated due to alleged 

domestic violence, Mother testing positive for methamphetamines

at A.L.’s birth in 2014, Mother testing positive for 

methamphetamines at David’s birth in 2017, Mother being 

arrested and no suitable adult being available to care for the 

children, alleged unsuitable living conditions, and Mother 

temporarily relinquishing care of A.L. to relatives. In each 

instance, the referral was closed with a notation of either “[n]o 

disposition” or “[u]nfounded,” and nothing in the record indicates 

that a dependency matter was ever filed in a Washington court.

However, Mother acknowledged that as a result of her 

methamphetamine use in 2017, Washington Child Protective 

Services (Washington CPS) detained her children and required 

2 F.M. lives with her maternal grandmother in 

Washington.
4

her to complete a substance abuse program. Thereafter, 

Washington CPS returned her children to her.

C. Events Giving Rise to DCFS’s Involvement

On June 17, 2020, DCFS received a referral after five-yearold A.L. told a mandated reporter that within the previous two 

weeks, she observed Mother’s male companion, Pedro L., put 

something in three-year-old David’s milk bottle that caused 

David to become sick. A.L. also reported that she received a 

bruise on her nose when she sat in the front seat of Mother’s car 

while not secured in a child safety seat.

A DCFS social worker interviewed Mother at Pedro’s 

mother and sister’s home,

3 where Mother and the children 

temporarily resided. Mother reported she was from Washington

and had come to California the previous week so that Pedro could 

participate in a drug treatment program.

Mother said she and Pedro had been in a relationship since 

mid-2019, when D.S. was three months old. When she met 

Pedro, she believed he was an alcoholic, but he went to 

treatment, and they moved in together.4 She later learned of

Pedro’s methamphetamine addiction. She denied that Pedro 

physically or verbally abused her or the children. Mother 

acknowledged Pedro dealt with depression.

According to Mother, Pedro’s family called law enforcement 

after David threw a tantrum. David slapped Mother, and when 

3 Christina L., Peggy L., Peggy’s son, Hector L., and Miguel 

L. live in the house. Pedro’s sister, Belen L., and her daughter, 

Gabby V., frequent the home to assist in caring or Christina L.

4 On March 7, 2016, Pedro was arrested for driving under 

the influence.
5

Pedro intervened and David continued to cry, family members in 

the home thought Pedro had “done something” to David. When 

the police arrived, A.L. told them that Pedro put 

methamphetamines in David’s bottle. Mother denied the 

allegation, observing that David does not use a bottle. A.L. then 

specified that Pedro smokes from a cup and her brother drank

from the same cup. Mother said Pedro had been sober since 

traveling to California from Washington two weeks earlier and 

that she would not stay with him if she thought he was using 

drugs.

Mother disclosed that she recently took a pregnancy test 

and learned she was pregnant by Pedro. When she told Pedro 

that she was pregnant, he told her to leave him, and they argued. 

They did not physically fight.

Mother reported that all the children were in car seats 

during the drive from Washington to California. She also said 

that the car seats were thrown away along the way because they 

were in bad condition. After they arrived in California, Pedro’s 

family provided new car seats for the boys, and Mother was

working on obtaining one for A.L. Mother denied the allegation 

that A.L. bruised her nose riding in the front seat with no car 

seat. Rather, A.L. had climbed into the car while Pedro was 

repairing it. He told her to get out because he was going to lower 

the car. Believing she was no longer in the car, he lowered the 

car off the jack stand, and the jolt caused A.L. to hit her nose on 

the dashboard.

The social worker assessed the children and determined 

that they had no marks or bruises. Due to the COVID-19 virus, 

the social worker did not evaluate the inside of the home.
6

Pedro’s niece, Gabby V., expressed concern about Pedro 

currently using drugs and Mother’s ability to care for the 

children. Gabby had remained at the house two days longer than 

she had planned because A.L. became so attached to her. A.L.

told Gabby that Mother slapped her in the face and that Pedro 

was mean to her and did “bad things.” A.L. did not define what 

she meant by bad things. Gabby said A.L. seemed scared because 

whenever the child talked about Pedro or Mother, she looked 

around to see if they were present.

The social worker interviewed A.L. with Gabby present, at 

A.L.’s request. A.L. reported seeing Pedro smoking out of a cup

and that the contents smelled like smoke. Her brothers drank 

from the same cup. A.L. said Pedro was mean to her. When 

Pedro was angry with her, he gave her chilies to eat, which made 

her cry. A.L. was scared of Pedro and looked back towards the 

door to see if anyone was coming. She reported that Mother 

slapped her face when she got into trouble and that Mother and 

Pedro fought with their hands and their words.

Mother agreed to a safety plan that included leaving the 

home with the children if Pedro appeared to be under the 

influence. Mother also agreed to submit to drug testing the 

following day, June 18, 2020. Mother failed to appear for the 

test.

The next day, the social worker was unable to reach Mother 

by phone. Pedro answered when the social worker called his 

number, but he became defensive and ended the call.

The social worker spoke with maternal grandmother by 

phone. She reported that Mother and D.S. tested positive for 
7

methamphetamines when D.S. was born.5 Washington CPS 

removed the children from Mother’s custody for a time and 

required her to attend drug treatment.

On June 22, 2020, Pedro’s sister, Belen L., told the social 

worker that A.L. had not been with Mother since last week and 

had been staying with Belen’s sister. Belen noted that she had 

been with law enforcement for 20 years and believed, based on 

Mother’s statements, actions, and skin, that Mother was an 

addict. She also believed Pedro was an addict and described 

some of his erratic behaviors. Belen reported Mother was no 

longer welcome in the home of Belen’s mother because her 

mother was suffering from stress. Belen also told the social 

worker that Gabby overheard Pedro warning A.L.: “You wanna 

tell, watch and see what’s gonna happen to you.”

That day, a social worker also spoke with Mother. Mother 

was upset that the social worker had spoken with maternal 

grandmother and told the social worker that DCFS could not 

prove anything about her or Pedro and that she would continue 

to protect Pedro. Mother agreed to submit to a drug test that day 

but again failed to do so.

D. DCFS Detains the Children

On June 23, 2020, the juvenile court granted an expedited 

removal order permitting DCFS to detain A.L., David, and D.S. 

A DCFS social worker, accompanied by law enforcement, went to 

the family’s residence to detain the children. Pedro locked 

himself in the bathroom, and Mother continued to state that 

5 Records from Washington CPS do not state that Mother 

or D.S. tested positive for methamphetamines at the time of 

D.S.’s birth.
8

DCFS had no proof Pedro was using drugs. During A.L.’s 

transport to foster care, the social worker stopped to get her food 

for dinner. When asked what A.L. had eaten for breakfast that 

day, A.L. responded she had not eaten anything yet.

A.L. was placed with one of Pedro’s sisters, Julia V., and 

her family. David and D.S. were placed with Belen.

The next day, Mother was informed that her visits with the 

children would be monitored. Mother continued to insist that 

DCFS had no proof that Pedro had actually relapsed, even 

though Pedro admitted to his brother that he was using drugs. 

Mother stated that she did not do anything wrong. She explained 

that A.L. said things about Pedro because she has a “wild 

imagination.”

E. The Petition and Amended Petition

On June 25, 2020, DCFS filed a section 300 petition. It

alleged the children came within the juvenile court’s jurisdiction 

pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (a) and (j) based upon 

Mother striking A.L. in the face and danger to her siblings David 

and D.S. as a result thereof (counts a-1 and j-1). DCFS also 

alleged the children came within the juvenile court’s jurisdiction 

pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b) as a result of Mother’s 

failure to protect caused by Mother slapping A.L. in the face

(count b-1); Pedro’s substance abuse, history of mental and 

emotional issues, and forcing A.L. to eat hot chilies (count b-2); 

Mother’s substance abuse (count b-3); and Mother permitting the 

children to be driven from Washington to California without 

being secured in car seats (count b-4).

On September 16, 2020, DCFS filed an amended petition, 

alleging pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b), that A.L., 

David, and D.S. suffered or there was a substantial risk they
9

would suffer serious physical harm or illness as a result of David 

Sr.’s domestic violence and substance abuse and Mother’s failure 

to protect them (counts b-5, b-6). DCFS also alleged that 

pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b), A.L. was at risk of harm 

due to Clifton’s substance abuse (count-b-7).

F. Detention Hearing

On June 30, 2020, the juvenile court found there had been 

a prima facie showing that A.L., David, and D.S. were persons 

described by section 300 and ordered the children temporarily 

removed from their parents. The juvenile court also ordered 

DCFS to provide drug testing and no or low cost referrals for 

educational programs for Mother.

G. Jurisdiction and Disposition Report

Between July 30, 2020, and August 11, 2020, a social 

worker interviewed Mother, Belen, A.L.’s half-sister, A.L., 

maternal grandmother, and Pedro’s ex-wife about the allegations 

in the petition. At this time, Mother stated she was living in a 

motel in El Monte, California, and that Pedro returned to 

Washington.

1. Hitting A.L. in the Face (Counts a-1, b-1, j-1)

Mother denied hitting A.L. in the face. A.L. explained that 

it was not true that Mother slapped her in the face. Mother hit 

her on her buttock with a sandal, and one time while they lived 

in Washington, the strike from the sandal left a purple mark on 

A.L.’s buttock. Mother also sometimes struck David with a 

sandal. Other than that, no adults hit A.L. A.L. stated she was 

not afraid of Mother and missed her. Based on this information, 

DCFS recommended that the juvenile court dismiss counts a-1, b1, and j-1.
10

2. Pedro’s Substance Abuse and Forcing A.L. to Eat “Hot 

Chilies” (Count b-2)

Mother confirmed Pedro struggled with alcohol when they 

first began to live together. She did not believe, until recently,

that Pedro struggled with drug abuse, and she believed he

wanted “to get help to do better.” With regard to placing chilies 

in A.L.’s mouth, Mother did not believe A.L. and observed that 

A.L. liked Pedro and always wanted to be around him. Maternal 

grandmother also stated that A.L. “tells lies” and that she did not 

believe A.L.’s statement about the hot chilies.

With regard to substance abuse, A.L. stated that Pedro 

smokes out of a bottle, that it “smells bad and lots of white smoke

com[es] out of the top,” and that Mother told Pedro to “stop 

smoking that,” but could not get the bottle from him. Once, 

David put his mouth on the bottle when he found it on the floor. 

A.L. also confirmed Pedro made her eat hot chilies. Belen told 

the social worker that, based on her law enforcement experience, 

she believed Pedro was using drugs.

Pedro’s ex-wife stated she divorced Pedro due to ongoing 

substance abuse issues. She obtained a stay-away order against 

Pedro and has custody of their son. She does not trust Pedro to 

be around their son and believed he should not be around anyone 

else’s children either.

3. Mother’s Substance Abuse (Count b-3)

Mother admitted she had a history of substance abuse, 

including that she and David Sr. used methamphetamines during 

their relationship. DCFS also obtained information from 

Washington CPS that Mother tested positive for 

methamphetamines in 2014, at A.L.’s birth and in 2017, at 

David’s birth. After the children were detained from Mother in 
11

Washington in 2017, she completed a substance abuse program. 

Washington CPS thereafter returned her children to her. Mother 

claimed she has been clean and sober since that time.

Maternal grandmother did not believe Mother was 

currently using drugs. A.L. never saw Mother use Pedro’s bottle 

to smoke. However, Belen believed Mother was currently using 

drugs.

On July 9, 21, 28,6 and August 13, 2020, Mother tested 

negative for drugs and alcohol. She did not appear for her drug 

tests scheduled for July 13, 2020, or August 3 or August 20, 2020. 

On August 26, 2020, Mother tested positive for 

methamphetamines. A social worker spoke with Mother about 

the positive result, and Mother stated it must have been a 

mistake.

4. Child Seats (Count b-4)

A.L. told the social worker that she sat in a booster seat 

during the trip from Washington to California. The booster seat 

was never placed in the front seat. Mother stated she would 

never drive without proper car seats for the children. She 

repeated that the family threw away the car seats for A.L. and 

David when they arrived in California because the seats were 

dirty. However, Belen stated when the family first arrived, the 

only child in a car seat was D.S. When Belen confronted Mother 

about the lack of car seats at that time, Mother remained silent.

6 The appellate record does not contain lab test results from 

July 28, 2020. However, a last minute information (LMI) for the 

hearing scheduled for November 30, 2020, and an LMI for the 

hearing scheduled for January 6, 2021, state Mother tested 

negative for substances on July 28, 2020.
12

5. David Sr.’s Domestic Violence and Substance Abuse 

(Counts b-5, b-6)

In January and May 2018, law enforcement in Washington 

responded to calls of domestic violence by David Sr. against 

Mother. A.L. stated she witnessed David Sr. hit Mother. Mother 

confirmed that David Sr. used methamphetamines while they 

were together.

6. Clifton’s Substance Abuse (Count b-7)

Mother stated that Clifton had problems with substance 

abuse. Clifton confirmed he had substance abuse issues and was 

in prison for possession of a controlled substance.

The social worker concluded that Mother repeatedly placed 

her children in dangerous and volatile circumstances and 

displayed poor impulse control. Further, Mother continued to 

deny unresolved substance abuse issues and continued to use 

methamphetamines despite being pregnant.

H. November 30, 2020 and January 6, 2021 LMIs

Mother failed to attend meetings with a DCFS social 

worker in October 2020 and on November 12, 2020. On 

November 23, 2020, and December 4, 2020, the social worker 

inquired about Mother’s progress in participating in parenting or 

substance abuse treatment programs. Each time, Mother 

responded she was not in any programs because her attorney 

advised her that the case would be transferred to Washington.

Mother reported that she and Pedro were living in a motel 

near the children, but Mother did not know the address. Mother 

stated she would submit an application for housing assistance.

Mother visited the children twice a week, monitored by the 

children’s foster parents. There were no concerns as a result of 

the visits.
13

I. February 25, 2021 LMI

During the last week of January or first week of February 

2021, Mother gave birth to Da. The foster mother saw Da. and 

reported he appeared healthy, but she did not provide any 

further information about the baby or his condition. At the time 

of the LMI, Mother had not enrolled in any programs. Further, 

she was evasive as to her address. According to the foster 

mother, Mother was “technically transient.”

The LMI also included further allegations by A.L. that 

Pedro was violent towards Mother when they lived in 

Washington. As a result, on February 18, 2021, a referral for 

physical abuse and domestic violence was generated. The 

referral was “evaluated out,” however, because the children were 

not at risk due to their out of home placement and “baby Da[.]

was not considered to be at risk because he was not born when 

the alleged incidents occurred.” DCFS advised the juvenile court 

that “[i]n light of the new information, [DCFS] will continue to 

make efforts in obtaining an address for [Mother] and to assess 

the newborn child.”

DCFS further reported that Mother missed 23 weekly 

random drug tests between September 4, 2020, and February 17, 

2021.7

7 The appellate record includes 22 lab reports indicating

Mother did not submit to substance tests on September 4, 10, 16, 

23 and 30, 2020; October 6, 16, 19, and 30, 2020; November 4, 10, 

17, and 23, 2020; December 4, 11, 18, 22, and 28, 2020; 

January 22 and 27, 2021; and February 5 and 17, 2021.
14

J. Proceedings Pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody 

Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act

On October 26, 2020, the juvenile court expected 

Washington would assert jurisdiction over the matter. By 

November 13, 2020, however, the juvenile court reported it 

appeared that a Washington court would not assert jurisdiction,

and therefore, the juvenile court planned to retain jurisdiction 

and proceed. According to the January 6, 2021, LMI, by

December 18, 2020, the juvenile court had spoken with a 

commissioner in the Washington court, and Washington declined 

to open a case for the children there. Accordingly, the juvenile 

court proceeded to exercise its jurisdiction in California.

8

K. Jurisdictional and Dispositional Hearing and Orders

At the March 12, 2021, combined jurisdictional and 

dispositional hearing, the juvenile court dismissed the counts 

relating to Mother allegedly slapping A.L. (counts a-1, b-1, and j1), Mother’s alleged failure to use car seats (count b-4), and 

David Sr.’s alleged domestic violence and Mother’s failure to 

protect the children therefrom (count b-5).

8 Clifton appealed the juvenile court’s March 12, 2021, 

jurisdictional dispositional orders on the basis that the juvenile 

court failed to make a sufficient record of its communications 

with the Washington court under the Uniform Child Custody 

Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA; Fam. Code, § 3400 

et seq.) before asserting jurisdiction over his daughter, A.L. 

Mother was not a party to the appeal. In an unpublished opinion, 

we concluded the juvenile court complied with the UCCJEA and 

affirmed its March 12, 2021 orders. (In re A.L. (Feb. 17, 2022, 

B311556) [nonpub. opn.].)
15

The court found it had jurisdiction over the children

pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b). It sustained the counts 

relating to Mother’s failure to protect the children from Pedro’s 

substance abuse and excessive discipline of A.L. (count b-2), 

Mother’s substance abuse (count b-3), David Sr.’s substance 

abuse and Mother’s related failure to protect the children (count 

b-6), and Clifton’s substance abuse (count b-7).

The juvenile court then determined clear and convincing 

evidence relating to each sustained count supported removing the 

children from Mother and fathers David Sr. and Clifton. The 

court ordered reunification services for Mother.

9

Mother appealed.10

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Principles and Standard of Review

Mother challenges the juvenile court’s dispositional orders

removing A.L., David, and D.S. from her custody on the basis 

that there was not clear and convincing evidence of a substantial 

risk of injury necessitating removal. Mother does not challenge 

the jurisdictional orders.

9 During the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing, 

Mother’s counsel represented that she would obtain Mother’s 

physical address. 

10 Mother’s counsel attempted to file a notice of appeal in 

the juvenile court on March 15, 2021. Mother’s appeal was 

rejected due to a failure to sign the notice. However, the firm’s 

support staff did not notify counsel in a timely manner of the 

rejection. On July 27, 2021, Mother refiled the notice of appeal,

and on July 30, 2021, sought relief from default pursuant to In re 

A.R. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 234. On August 5, 2021, we granted 

Mother’s motion for relief.
16

To remove a child from the custody of a parent with whom 

the child resided at the time the petition was filed, the juvenile 

court must find by clear and convincing evidence that one of five 

grounds exists pursuant to section 361, subdivision (c). (In re 

V.L. (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 147, 154.) Of relevance here, “[o]ne 

ground for removal is that there is a substantial risk of injury to 

the child’s physical health, safety, protection or emotional wellbeing if he or she were returned home, and there are no 

reasonable means to protect the child.” (Ibid., citing § 361, subd. 

(c)(1).) “ ‘The parent need not be dangerous and the minor need 

not have been actually harmed before removal is appropriate. 

The focus of the statute is on averting harm to the child.’ ” (In re 

N.M. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 159, 169-170.)

“ ‘ “In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the 

evidence supporting the jurisdictional findings and disposition, 

we determine if substantial evidence, contradicted or 

uncontradicted, supports them. ‘In making this determination, 

we draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support 

the findings and orders of the dependency court; we review the 

record in the light most favorable to the court’s determinations; 

and we note that issues of fact and credibility are the province of 

the trial court.’ [Citation.] ‘We do not reweigh the evidence or 

exercise independent judgment, but merely determine if there are 

sufficient facts to support the findings of the trial court.’ ” ’ 

[Citation.] In reviewing for substantial evidence to support a 

dispositional order removing a child, we ‘keep[ ] in mind that the 

[juvenile] court was required to make its order based on the 

higher standard of clear and convincing evidence.’ [Citations.]” 

(In re Nathan E. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 114, 122-123.)
17

The clear and convincing evidence standard “ ‘ “requires a 

finding of high probability. The evidence must be so clear as to 

leave no substantial doubt.” ’ ” (In re V.L., supra, 54 Cal.App.5th 

at p. 154.) “ ‘[W]hen reviewing a finding that a fact has been 

proved by clear and convincing evidence, the question before the 

appellate court is whether the record as a whole contains 

substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could 

have found it highly probable that the fact was true.’ ” (Id. at 

p. 155 [applying the standard of review articulated in a 

conservatorship matter to a dependency proceeding], quoting 

Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 995-996.)

B. The Record Demonstrates a High Probability of 

Substantial Risk of Injury to the Children If They 

Remained in Mother’s Custody

Relevant to the juvenile court’s decision to remove a child 

from a parent who suffers from alcohol or drug abuse “are such 

factors as the type of drug involved, extent and length of the 

addiction, age of the child[ren], the child[ren]’s special needs, if 

any, the parent’s acknowledgement of the problem, the parent’s 

current status in treatment, the availability of services, the 

problems created by the abuse, and whether there is another 

protective individual in the home.” (Seiser & Kumli, 1 Cal.

Juvenile Courts Practice & Procedure (2020) § 2.126.) A parent’s 

failure to acknowledge that a substance abuse problem exists “ ‘is

. . . relevant to determining whether persons are likely to modify 

their behavior in the future without court supervision.’ 

[Citation.]” (In re A.F. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 283, 293; see In re 

J.C. (2014) 233 Cal.App.4th 1, 6-7 [affirming removal 

notwithstanding the father’s participation in treatment where his 

treatment provider reported his participation was “ ‘sluggish,’ ” 
18

he missed two drug tests, and had a long history of substance 

abuse].)

Here, Mother has a confirmed longstanding history of 

methamphetamine abuse, and substantial evidence establishes

that at the time of the combined jurisdictional and dispositional 

hearing, Mother continued to use methamphetamines and failed 

to acknowledge the risk to her children created by her drug use. 

Mother tested positive for methamphetamines at the time of 

A.L.’s birth in 2014. Mother acknowledged she used 

methamphetamines with David Sr. when they were together, and 

she tested positive again at David’s birth in 2017. As a result, in 

2017, her children were detained by Washington CPS, and she 

was required to complete a drug treatment program in order to 

have them returned to her. Nevertheless, in August 2020, 

Mother again tested positive for methamphetamines. Thereafter, 

Mother never took another drug test, missing over 20 drug test 

appointments. These missed tests may be considered equivalent 

to a positive result. (See In re Christopher R. (2014) 225 

Cal.App.4th 1210, 1217.)

Mother’s failure to participate in any educational or 

counseling programs further supports the juvenile court’s finding 

that removal was necessary. (See In re J.C., supra, 233 

Cal.App.4th at pp. 6-7.) Mother claims she delayed enrolling in 

any programs because her attorney advised her the matter would 

be transferred to Washington. However, at the November 13,

2020, hearing, the juvenile court indicated it would very likely 

retain jurisdiction in California, and Mother still declined to 

participate in any programs before the dispositional hearing on 

March 12, 2021. Moreover, Mother does not explain why a 

potential transfer to Washington should have prevented her from 
19

enrolling in programs to address significant issues in her life 

during the eight to nine months between the time her children 

were detained by DCFS and the dispositional hearing.

Mother argues that she had been caring for her newborn 

son, Da., without incident from the time of his birth in or about 

February 2021 until the March 12, 2021, dispositional hearing, 

and this demonstrates that A.L., David, and D.S. would not have

been at risk of harm in her custody. She contends “[i]f a newborn 

child was considered to be safe in Mother’s care, it was 

nonsensical to conclude that her older children were not.”

The record does not establish that Da. was safe in Mother’s 

care. After Da. was born, there was a referral to DCFS based 

upon A.L.’s allegations of Pedro’s domestic violence against 

Mother, but it was “evaluated out” because Da. “was not born 

when the alleged incidents occurred.” DCFS faced difficulties in 

locating Mother and “assess[ing] the newborn child” at all. At no 

point was there a finding that Da. was safe in Mother’s care or 

that her substance abuse did not place him at risk.

Mother further argues her monitored visits with her 

children twice a week for two to three hours each visit with no 

concerns arising therefrom demonstrate consistency, stability 

and sobriety. As explained above, however, substantial evidence 

supported the juvenile court’s finding that Mother’s continued 

substance abuse posed a substantial risk of injury to her children. 

The juvenile court could reasonably infer that Mother’s positive 

methamphetamine test two months after her children were 

detained and after she knew she was pregnant with another child 

indicates she lacked the ability to control her addiction or to 

appreciate the risks of her behavior to her children. Mother’s 

refusal to participate in educational and counseling programs 
20

further supports this inference. It is not a function of an 

appellate court to reweigh evidence. (In re Nathan E., supra, 61 

Cal.App.5th at pp. 122-123.)

We are also not persuaded by Mother’s arguments that 

there were alternatives to removal, including unannounced visits 

by DCFS, and that “she was willing to participate in any 

programs that would allow the children to stay with her.” The 

record reflects that at the time of the jurisdictional and 

dispositional hearing, Mother had repeatedly evaded DCFS’s 

supervision and declined to participate or even enroll in any 

programs. The juvenile court need not have found credible 

Mother’s promises that she would act differently in the future.

DISPOSITION

The March 12, 2021 dispositional orders removing A.L., 

David, and D.S. from Mother’s custody are affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

MORI, J.*

We concur:

ROTHSCHILD, P. J. CHANEY, J.

* Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, assigned 

by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the 

California Constitution.