Filed 4/3/14 In re J.T. CA2/8 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

In re J.T., a Person Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law. 

 B251042 

 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND 

FAMILY SERVICES, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

E. T., 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 (Los Angeles County 

 Super. Ct. No. CK97934) 

 APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Akemi 

Arakaki, Judge. Affirmed. 

 Terence M. Chucas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant. 

John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, 

Kimberly Roura, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

______________________________ 
2

E. T. (father) appeals from juvenile court orders asserting dependency jurisdiction 

over his infant son, J.T., and removing J.T. from father’s custody. Father contends the 

jurisdictional order was not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

 In March 2013, the juvenile court sustained a dependency petition regarding the 

two children of father and mother, Isabel D.J. The court sustained allegations that the 

two children, Jesus and Victoria, were at substantial risk of harm due to the parents’ 

verbal altercations and father’s alcohol abuse. Reports from the Los Angeles County 

Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) indicated that in January 2013, then 

six-year-old Jesus told an anonymous reporting party that when father got mad, he hit 

mother in the stomach. Mother was pregnant with J.T. at the time. Mother and father 

denied that father hit anyone in the house, but mother admitted father often came home 

angry and yelled. Mother recalled an incident in which father tried to hit Jesus, but 

mother put herself in between them and threatened to call the police. Mother reported 

father drank to excess often, and his drinking was a problem. Father denied coming 

home from work angry and denied being an alcoholic. When interviewed by a social 

worker, Jesus denied that father hit him, but made comments such as: “I don’t know how 

he’s hit me because he doesn’t hit me anymore.” 

 School personnel reported Jesus was having significant difficulties in school. In 

his first year of school he made himself vomit almost every morning. He had repeated 

kindergarten in the 2012-2013 academic year, but was still at a pre-school level. He also 

routinely had accidents at school and “leaked” in his pants. Mother and father attributed 

the accidents to nervousness. They refused to sign a medical release to allow school 

personnel to speak with his doctor. 

 In February 2013, mother reported father had kicked her out of their home. He 

had grown angry after she spent all day with her mother. Mother indicated father drank 

every day until he was drunk and was aggressive when intoxicated. When he came home 

from work he yelled at her and the children. Since father drank every day, she was afraid 

for him to have unmonitored contact with the children. She said father could not control 
3

his anger and “could hit the children if they do something to upset him.” Father 

continued to deny having any problems with alcohol or domestic violence. He did not 

understand why mother said he had problems with anger or with alcohol. He also denied 

that Jesus was having trouble in school. 

 After sustaining the dependency petition, the juvenile court placed the children 

with mother. The court ordered father to participate in programs, including an alcohol 

program with weekly testing, an anger management program, and individual counseling. 

The court also ordered mother to participate in programs, including individual counseling 

to address case issues, such as domestic violence and father’s alcohol use, and parenting 

programs. 

 In May 2013, mother gave birth to J.T. DCFS filed a petition asserting J.T. was at 

risk of harm due to mother and father’s verbal altercations and father’s history of alcohol 

abuse. Mother and father had not been in contact since February 2013. In a jurisdiction 

and disposition report, DCFS reported father had enrolled in programs and attended them 

regularly. His case manager said he was an active participant and was making good 

progress. He had perfect attendance. Father had also submitted to random and ondemand alcohol testing. He had no positive results, but missed four tests in April and 

May. Mother had not yet been able to participate in any counseling or parenting classes 

due to her pregnancy, childbirth, and caring for infant J.T. 

 At the July 2013 jurisdiction and disposition hearing, mother submitted the 

jurisdictional determination to the court. Father contended the petition should be 

dismissed because DCFS had not established J.T. was at substantial risk of harm. 

The juvenile court commended father on his progress, but concluded by a preponderance 

of the evidence that J.T. was a person described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 

300, subdivision (j).1 The court also found by clear and convincing evidence that 

removal from father’s custody was necessary. J.T. was to remain with mother. 

 

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 
4

 Father timely appealed. In September 2013, while this appeal was pending, the 

juvenile court issued a home of parents order; however, the parents were ordered to 

remain living in separate residences. 

DISCUSSION 

I. Substantial Evidence Supported the Court’s Jurisdictional Findings 

Father contends there was insufficient evidence of substantial risk of harm to J.T. 

We disagree. 

“We review the court’s jurisdictional and dispositional findings for substantial 

evidence. [Citations.] Evidence is ‘ “[s]ubstantial” ’ if it is ‘ “ ‘reasonable, credible, and 

of solid value.’ ” ’ [Citation.] We do not pass on the credibility of witnesses, attempt to 

resolve conflicts in the evidence or weigh the evidence. Instead, we draw all reasonable 

inferences in support of the findings, view the record in favor of the juvenile court’s order 

and affirm the order even if other evidence supports a contrary finding. [Citations.] The 

appellant has the burden of showing there is no evidence of a sufficiently substantial 

nature to support the findings or order.” (In re T.W. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1161-

1162.) “ ‘ “ ‘The ultimate test is whether it is reasonable for a trier of fact to make the 

ruling in question in light of the whole record.’ [Citation.]” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” 

(In re V.M. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 245, 252 (V.M.).) 

 Under section 300, subdivision (j), the juvenile court may assert dependency 

jurisdiction over a child if: “The child’s sibling has been abused or neglected, as defined 

in subdivision (a), (b), (d), (e), or (i), and there is a substantial risk that the child will be 

abused or neglected, as defined in those subdivisions. 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.” 

 Here, it is undisputed that J.T.’s siblings were abused or neglected as defined in 

section 300, subdivision (b). This was based on father’s alcohol abuse and violent 

altercations between mother and father. There was evidence that father had either hit or 
5

threatened to hit Jesus; he drank every day to the point of inebriation; he was aggressive 

and violent when drunk, or he passed out and was incapable of caring for the children. 

Jesus told an anonymous reporter that father hit mother in the stomach when she was 

pregnant with J.T. Father admitted he had been drinking alcohol since he was 10 years 

old. Before mother’s departure and the removal of his children, father mostly denied that 

his drinking was a problem, or that his altercations with mother might be detrimental to 

the children. 

 As the juvenile court acknowledged, father had appeared to make substantial 

improvements since dependency jurisdiction was asserted over Jesus and Victoria, but 

that was only four months before the jurisdiction hearing regarding J.T. Father now 

admitted he had verbal altercations with mother, but denied they were ever in front of the 

children. He also admitted he had been in the habit of drinking every day, but denied that 

he was ever aggressive when he drank. He was fully compliant with court-ordered 

programs, but they were still in the early stages. He had also missed several random or 

on-demand alcohol tests. J.T. was not yet three months old at the time of the jurisdiction 

hearing. 

 Despite father’s progress, the juvenile court could reasonably determine father’s 

past conduct, which formed the basis of dependency jurisdiction over Jesus and Victoria, 

similarly placed J.T. at substantial risk of serious physical harm, within the meaning of 

section 300, subdivision (b). Moreover, mother had not yet been able to participate in 

services to address the underlying domestic violence and parenting issues. There was 

some suggestion in the record that mother might consider reuniting with father, illustrated 

by her request for a family visit so she could observe how father would act with all four 

family members. Given the fluidity of the situation, mother’s inability to participate in 

services, father’s prolonged alcohol abuse and the newness of his sobriety, the long 

history of violent altercations between the parents, the parents’ failure to recognize the 

seriousness of Jesus’s incontinence at school, and J.T.’s complete helplessness as an 

infant, the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of jurisdiction under section 300, 

subdivision (j). Even if the probability of harm to J.T. was somewhat lower than it might 
6

have been four or five months earlier, the magnitude of potential harm was significant 

since, as an infant, he would be completely dependent on father’s care. (In re I.J. (2013) 

56 Cal.4th 766, 778.) We find no error in the trial court ruling. 

II. Father Concedes the Removal Order is Moot 

 While this appeal was pending, the juvenile court returned J.T. to the home of both 

parents, under DCFS supervision. We granted respondent’s request that we take judicial 

notice of the order. Father concurs with respondent that his appeal of the court’s removal 

order is moot. (In re I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489-1490.) Thus, we do not 

consider the merits of that order. 

DISPOSITION 

The juvenile court’s jurisdictional order is affirmed. 

 BIGELOW, P.J. 

We concur: 

 RUBIN, J. 

 GRIMES, J.