Filed 3/9/21 In re M.M. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 M.M., A Person Coming 

Under Juvenile Court Law.

_________________________________

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DEBRA M., 

Defendant and Appellant.

 B306682

 (Los Angeles County Super.

 Ct. No. 17LJJP00156B)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Nichelle Blackwell, Juvenile Court Referee. 

Affirmed.

Erin Riley Khorram, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant 

County Counsel, and Navid Nakhjavani, Principal Deputy 

County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

________________________
2

Mother D.M. appeals from the dispositional order following 

the adjudication of her then two-year-old son, M.M. (child) as a 

dependent child. Specifically, she contends the court erred in 

removing her son from her custody because reasonable means 

existed to protect him without removing him from her home. She 

further contends the court erred in finding the Department of 

Children and Family Services (the Department) had made 

reasonable efforts to avoid removal. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. Prior Services

Child was born in September 2017, when mother was 19

years old. Mother was herself a dependent, and was still 

receiving services. Those services would continue until she 

turned 21 in January 2019. 

In October 2017, the Department received a referral

alleging physical abuse and general neglect. The abuse 

allegation was unfounded, but the general neglect was 

substantiated.1 A non-detained dependency case was opened. In 

February 2018, the petition was dismissed without prejudice due 

to mother agreeing to a voluntary family maintenance contract

with the Department, with the goal of keeping child in her home. 

(Welf. & Inst. Code, § 301.)2 Mother participated in counseling 

and random drug testing. She tested negative, although she 

1 The allegation involved mother leaving her placement with 

the child for a number of days. Upon her return, mother’s

behavior “began to escalate” and, while holding her newborn, she 

threatened to punch the caregiver and threatened other adults in 

the home. 

2 All further undesignated statutory references are to the

Welfare & Institutions Code.
3

missed some tests. The family maintenance contract ended on 

July 25, 2018. 

2. The April 30, 2020 Incident

The current case brought child to the attention of the 

Department when mother and child found themselves in the 

middle of a drug deal.

On April 30, 2020, police planned a controlled buy of 

cocaine base in an area known for high narcotics activity. They 

used an informant as the purchaser. The purchaser met with a 

man (referred to in the police report as Suspect 2) at an 

intersection and told him he wanted to buy rock cocaine. Suspect 

2 entered the informant’s vehicle and directed him to another 

intersection some distance away. There, the informant gave 

Suspect 2 predesignated buy money. Suspect 2 exited the car and 

placed a call. Thereafter, another vehicle, driven by Suspect 1, 

pulled up. Suspect 1 exited the car and met Suspect 2. Suspect 2 

handed Suspect 1 the cash. As Suspect 1 was handing Suspect 2

the cocaine base, police converged. Both suspects were arrested 

without incident. 

Police found mother and child in the back seat of Suspect 

1’s car. A dozen liquor bottles, with security devices attached 

(consistent with the bottles being stolen) were next to mother. 

Child was not in a car seat. 

Mother was “irate and chaotic when law enforcement asked 

her to step out of the vehicle. She was making growling sounds 

and screaming noises, and was not responsive to law 

enforcement.” Mother resisted and the officers “utilized use of 

force strategy” against her. A social worker from the 

Department’s Multi-Agency Response Team, CSW Diego Lopez, 

was called to the scene. Prior to interviewing mother, Lopez 
4

“observed the mother to need about five minutes to gather herself 

as she was growling and screaming loudly.” Mother eventually 

calmed. 

When asked to explain her presence at the scene, she said 

she had met Suspect 1 at the grocery store a couple days ago, and 

had asked him for a ride to the store. She denied any awareness 

of criminal activity and said she did not even know his name. 

When asked about the lack of car seat, she said she did not think 

much of it because “ ‘we only came down the street.’ ” CSW Lopez

reminded her of the importance of a car seat and mother agreed, 

expressing remorse and promising to comply with the law in the 

future.

When asked about drug use, mother reported that she used 

marijuana weekly. CSW Lopez asked if she would drug test to 

rule out the use of any illicit substances, and mother agreed; she 

also stated that she may test positive for methamphetamine, as 

she had used last weekend when out “with some friends she met 

on the streets.” She denied using drugs in the presence of her 

child, explaining that when she had used methamphetamine, 

child was cared for by a friend at mother’s transitional home.3

Mother has no family she can turn to for support. Child’s father 

has been identified by first name only. He is not a presence in 

child’s life nor a party to this appeal. 

Law enforcement took mother and child home. CSW Lopez 

conducted a home assessment; there were no concerns regarding 

safety in the home. Lopez also believed the child was healthy 

and safe.

3 Mother lived in a home for low income mothers and their 

children. She reported that times had been difficult and she did 

not work. Mother’s criminal history includes prostitution. 
5

Mother drug tested the next day, May 1, 2020. She was

positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and marijuana. 

3. Detention

On May 6, 2020, CSW Lopez filed an application for an 

authorization for removal. An order was obtained and child was 

detained the next day. 

4. Petition

On May 11, 2020, the Department filed a petition to declare 

child a dependent under section 300, subdivision (b).4 Two 

paragraphs were alleged to support dependency. Ultimately, the 

first would be sustained and the second dismissed.5

The sustained first paragraph alleged mother “has a 

history of substance abuse and is a current abuser of 

methamphetamines, amphetamines, and marijuana, which 

renders the mother incapable of providing regular care and 

supervision of the child. On 05/01/2020, the mother had a 

4 This provides a child may be adjudicated dependent if 

“[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

. . . the inability of the parent or guardian to provide regular care 

for the child due to the parent’s or guardian’s . . . substance 

abuse.”

5 The dismissed paragraph was solely directed to the 

April 30, 2020 incident, not the broader question of mother’s 

substance abuse and her inability to care for child. It alleged 

that mother put child in a “detrimental and endangering 

situation in that cocaine base and 12 bottles of alcohol were found 

in a vehicle with the child” and also that he was not secured in a 

car seat. The court did not find this allegation untrue; it simply 

found insufficient evidence that there was a current risk to child 

sufficient for jurisdiction based on this allegation. 
6

positive toxicology screen for amphetamines, methamphetamines, 

and marijuana. The child is of such young age requiring constant 

care and supervision and the mother’s substance abuse interferes 

with providing regular care and supervision of the child. The 

mother’s substance abuse endangers the child’s physical health 

and safety and places the child at risk of serious physical harm, 

damage and danger.” 

At the May 14, 2020 detention hearing, the court directed 

the Department to provide mother with all appropriate low and 

no cost referrals for services. The court specifically stated, “Those 

referrals to include a testing referral with result in the next 

report.” CSW Lopez had indicated in his detention report that 

referrals for parenting, individual counseling, substance abuse, 

and random drug testing had already been provided to mother. 

The matter was set for an adjudication/disposition hearing

5. Progress Before the Adjudication/Disposition Hearing

Mother had a number of drug tests between the May 14, 

2020 detention hearing and the July 8, 2020 adjudication 

hearing. Mother did not test positive for methamphetamine or 

amphetamine after her first, May 1, 2020, on-demand test. 

However, she had two missed tests. In addition, her drug tests 

indicated that she continued using marijuana.6

Her test results were:

6 On appeal, mother asserts that her “test results showed a 

general trend toward reduced amounts of marijuana present in 

her system.” On the contrary, the numbers twice increased from 

their last reported value, indicating that mother used marijuana 

at least twice during this period – once before May 22 and once 

before June 18. 

Date Marijuana metabolites 
7

(move this to left) Mother also began individual counseling; 

she had three sessions and appeared motivated and cooperative. 

She had also enrolled in parenting. Mother had not yet enrolled 

in substance abuse treatment; she would testify that she was 

placed on a waiting list. 

6. The Department’s Report for the 

Adjudication/Disposition Hearing

The Department’s report for the Adjudication/Disposition 

hearing contained further statements from mother regarding her 

drug use and how it impacted child. Mother admitted that, 

before child was born, she was using methamphetamine “ ‘on and 

off.’ ” She denied being a current user of methamphetamine, and 

claimed that she had simply used once when “ ‘hanging out’ ” 

with friends. She again said she left child with a friend at home

when she used, but was “not able to provide the name or contact 

information of the friend that provided care and supervision” for 

the child.7

Mother admitted that she used to smoke marijuana “ ‘all 

the time,’ ” but claimed to have recently stopped using because 

7 Mother did identify a friend as her support system, but did 

not identify her as the person who cared for child when she was 

using methamphetamine. 

May 1, 2020 899 NG/ml

May 22, 2020 >4000 NG/ml

May 28, 2020 No show

June 4, 2020 76 NG/ml

June 9, 2020 No show

June 18, 2020 626 NG/ml

June 25, 2020 174 NG/ml
8

she wanted to focus on education, employment, and reunifying 

with her child. “Mother stated that she feels that she is receiving 

resources from the Department and does not need to smoke 

Marijuana at this time.” Mother wanted to begin training to 

become a security guard, so needed to stop using marijuana. 

As to what brought her and child to be in the backseat of a 

car during a drug deal, mother claimed that she had been

running out of milk for child and called her friend for a ride to the 

store so she could buy more. She claimed she was unaware of the 

alcohol in the vehicle. She also regretted not using a car seat and 

requested Department assistance in obtaining one. She accepted 

that she needs to make better decisions for her son’s safety. 

7. The Adjudication/Disposition Hearing

The combined Adjudication/Disposition hearing was held 

on July 8, 2020. 

As to jurisdiction, mother’s counsel conceded the case was 

about “a mother who needs help and is willing to get help and 

acknowledges her use of drugs.” There were no witnesses on the 

issue of jurisdiction, and the court found child dependent under 

section 300, subdivision (b), based on mother’s drug abuse, as 

alleged in the first paragraph of the petition. The court found 

that “mother has a substance abuse problem” and stated, “I do 

believe that the mother’s current use of methamphetamine and 

getting into a car with individuals who had stolen merchandise 

and possibly engaging in narcotics sales, individuals who she has 

known for only two days, by her own statements, indicates 

mother is making bad choices and bad decisions, possibly because 

of her methamphetamine use.” 

The court then turned to disposition, and heard evidence on 

whether removing child from mother was necessary. Mother 
9

submitted a letter confirming that she had started individual 

counseling and also testified herself. She called as a witness the 

Department’s Dependency Investigator (DI) Sonia Sandoval.

DI Sandoval was called, in part, in order to support 

mother’s argument that the Department had not provided mother 

with the necessary referrals. Sandoval testified that she did not 

provide mother with referrals because CSW Lopez already had. 

Mother did not call Lopez to testify.

DI Sandoval also testified that the Department had 

considered whether to recommend keeping child in mother’s 

home supported by family preservation services. The 

Department declined to do so because of the following 

circumstances: (1) mother’s ongoing marijuana use; (2) the 

Department’s inability to identify, and therefore assess, anyone 

who allegedly cared for child while mother was under the 

influence; (3) mother’s recent use of methamphetamine; 

(4) mother’s missed drug tests; (5) mother’s previous participation 

in a program with substance abuse treatment; (6) child’s tender 

years; (7) mother’s lack of a support system; (8) mother’s lack of 

current participation in a substance abuse program; and 

(9) mother’s lack of stable housing. 

Mother testified that she had been trying to get into a 

substance abuse program but was initially placed on a waiting 

list. She asserted that she was presently being assessed for a 

program which she had found on her own. 

The trial court reasonably found mother’s testimony 

regarding drug testing implausible. Mother claimed that she had 

never missed a test and called every day to make sure her letter 

was not called. She asserted that on June 25 – less than two 

weeks before the hearing – she had been changed from random 
10

testing to weekly testing. When asked when she last used 

marijuana, she said it was “[a] month and a half ago, the day 

they switched” the testing schedule.

8

Mother’s counsel argued for placement of child in mother’s

home with services. Counsel argued that mother was willing to 

do programs and had done everything she could to enroll, even 

without the Department’s assistance. Counsel argued that there 

was only one positive drug test for methamphetamine, and 

mother had stopped using marijuana, as decreasing levels 

confirmed. Mother’s counsel specifically requested the court find 

that reasonable services to prevent removal had not been 

provided.

The trial court concluded that removal was necessary. 

Although the court did not accept all the reasons offered by the 

Department, the court found that mother’s drug use created too 

great a risk to child. The court recognized that, although 

marijuana is legal, “if someone is using it and under the influence 

of it, they need to not be caring for their child, especially a twoyear-old child.” The court stated that mother “stated some 

random person at her transitional housing was caring for the 

child, but she failed to give a name so I find that to be dishonest 

and lacking in credibility to this court.” 

The court also cited mother’s recent use of 

methamphetamine. The court stated that it appeared that mother

was under the influence of methamphetamine when the arrest 

was made. The court was particularly concerned that mother’s 

8 After testimony closed and counsel was arguing, mother 

attempted to volunteer that she had made a mistake and the date 

of the change was actually “the 15th.” Even June 15 was not a 

month and a half prior to the July 8 hearing.
11

methamphetamine use “impacted mother’s ability to make the 

right judgment” such as whether to “get in a car with a two year 

old without a car seat, with someone she had known for only two 

days, noting that there were bottles of alcohol with a security tag 

still on them right next to her in the car.” An additional basis for 

the court’s ruling was mother’s missed and positive drug tests, 

including those showing increases in her marijuana metabolites. 

The court summed up its dispositional findings, “This is a 

young child of tender years and it is important to see that the 

mother has control over her addiction. [¶] This addiction will not 

just go away. One has to exercise the proper tools, the proper 

techniques, the proper relapse prevention skills to avoid relapse, 

and that means not being in an environment with drug users, 

drug abusers or drug dealers and maintain a sober life-style and 

a sober environment.” The court found clear and convincing 

evidence existed that returning child would pose a substantial 

risk of detriment and no reasonable means then existed to protect 

him other than removal. 

The court also found the Department made reasonable 

efforts to avoid removal. 

Mother was granted monitored visitation and reunification 

services. Mother filed a timely notice of appeal. 

DISCUSSION

On appeal, mother does not contest the court’s finding of 

jurisdiction, but challenges the court’s dispositional order to the 

extent the dependency court did not return child to her custody. 

Specifically, mother argues reasonable means existed to protect 

child in her home, via family preservation services. In addition, 

mother argues the Department did not make reasonable efforts to 

prevent removal. 
12

1. Sufficient Evidence Supports Child’s Removal

“Before the court may order a child physically removed 

from his or her parent, it must find, by clear and convincing 

evidence, that the child would be at substantial risk of harm if 

returned home and that there are no reasonable means by which 

the child can be protected without removal. [Citations.]” (In re 

Cole C. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 900, 917.) “The parent need not 

be dangerous and the child need not have been actually harmed 

for removal to be appropriate. The focus 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.]” (Ibid.)

We review the court’s disposition finding for substantial 

evidence. (In re Henry V. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 522, 529.) 

Because the trial court’s finding must itself be made on clear and 

convincing evidence, we must take that heightened standard into 

account in our review. (In re V.L. (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 147, 

155.) Specifically “ ‘[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. Consistent 

with well-established principles governing review for sufficiency 

of the evidence, in making this assessment the appellate court 

must view the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing 

party below and give due deference to how the trier of fact may 

have evaluated the credibility of witnesses, resolved conflicts in 

the evidence, and drawn reasonable inferences from the 

evidence.’ ” (Ibid., quoting Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 

9 Cal.5th 989, 995-996.) 
13

Here, the trial court concluded mother’s unresolved 

substance abuse rendered it unsafe for child to be returned 

home.9 This was supported by substantial evidence. Mother

admitted using methamphetamine before child was born and 

smoking marijuana weekly during his life. Her previous family 

maintenance services included drug testing, confirming that 

drugs played a role in the prior neglect allegations. That she 

tested negative at the time, albeit with missed tests, showed that 

mother was able to restrain her drug use to some degree. But 

that she relapsed into regular marijuana use and at least one 

incident of methamphetamine use evidenced that she was not 

stable in sobriety.

Mother’s drug use presented a risk of harm to the child in 

the absence of an identified safe caretaker who could supervise 

the child when mother used, and was under the influence of,

drugs. She could not identify the person with whom she left child 

when she used methamphetamine; and, more importantly, she 

had the child in her sole supervision when she was still impaired

by methamphetamine, resulting in her admittedly bad choices 

which placed the child at risk.

9 In her reply brief on appeal, mother suggests the evidence 

only supports a finding that she “used,” drugs, not that she 

“abused” them. This argument would go to the jurisdictional 

finding, which mother did not contest in her opening brief. 

Jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b) is based on 

substance abuse, not substance use. (In re Drake M., (2012) 

211 Cal.App.4th 754, 764.) In any event, the findings that we 

affirm with regard to the risk to child presented by mother’s 

methamphetamine and marijuana use likewise support the 

court’s jurisdictional finding of substance abuse. 
14

On appeal, Mother suggests that “by the time of the 

jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the immediate risks the 

court identified that resulted from mother’s poor decision-making 

had been addressed.” She notes, in this regard, that she 

(1) sought Department assistance in obtaining a car seat; (2) was 

no longer associating with the drug-dealing suspects; (3) was 

cooperating with the Department; and (4) had located a drug 

program and put her name on the waitlist. Notably absent from 

her list is any suggestion that she had stopped using drugs. 

Indeed, she had not. Of her six drug tests following child’s initial 

detention, two showed an increase in marijuana metabolites and 

two were no shows.10 While mother claimed to have stopped 

using marijuana a few weeks prior to the adjudication/disposition 

hearing, this short sobriety is insufficient to demonstrate that the 

risk had been abated.

Increased Department supervision could not protect child 

in mother’s home at this point. Given mother’s history of drug 

abuse, the court could not safely return child to mother’s custody 

without a lengthier term of sobriety. There was simply no 

evidence that mother would not again attempt to care for her

toddler while under the influence of drugs.

10 In her brief on appeal, mother states, “Mother 

acknowledges she missed two opportunities to drug test, which 

she had undertaken to do, voluntarily.” She then suggests this 

should not “weigh heavily against her” as the tests were not then 

court-ordered. Mother’s acknowledgement of the missed tests on 

appeal is in direct contrast to her testimony at the hearing, when, 

having been given an opportunity to explain why she missed two 

tests, she simply denied having missed them. Mother’s appellate 

concession is, in effect, an admission that she was not truthful in 

her testimony at the disposition hearing. 
15

2. Substantial Evidence Supports the Court’s Finding 

Reasonable Efforts Were Made to Prevent Removal

The juvenile court is required to make a determination 

whether reasonable efforts were made to eliminate the need for 

removal. (§ 361, subd. (e).) The trial court made a finding that 

reasonable efforts had been made, but did not specify those 

efforts beyond stating the Department has evidenced reasonable 

efforts “by repeated efforts and services they’ve offered mother.” 

“We review a reasonable services finding to determine if it 

is supported by substantial evidence. [Citation.]” (In re A.G.

(2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 994, 1001.) Substantial evidence supports 

the court’s finding. CSW Lopez provided mother with low or no 

cost referrals to parenting, individual counseling, substance 

abuse, and random drug testing. Indeed, prior to the 

adjudication/disposition hearing, mother told DI Sandoval “that 

she feels that she is receiving resources from the Department and 

does not need to smoke Marijuana at this time.” 

DISPOSITION

The disposition order is affirmed.

RUBIN, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

MOOR, J.

KIM, J.