Filed 2/17/15 In re Genesis G. CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

In re GENESIS G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. B255914 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK99768)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JUAN G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Cou rt of Los Angeles County.
Philip Soto, Judge. Affirmed.

Karen B. Stalter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.

Mark J. Saladino, County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel,
and Jacklyn K. Louie, Dep uty County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________2

Juan G. (father) appeals from the finding of jurisdic tion over his daughter,

Genesis G. (minor), in connection with a petition filed under Welfare and Institutions

Code section 342. 1 We find no error and affirm.

FACTS
In 2001, father was convicted of felony posse ssion of a controlled substance

. Four
years later, he was convicted of us ing a controlled substance. That offense was a

misdemeanor.
The minor was born in early 2009. On May 31, 2013, when she was four years
old, the Department of Children and Family Services (Department) fi l ed a section 300 petition on the minor’s behalf. It alleged that the minor’s mother, Mayra R

. (mother)

, had a history of illicit drug abuse , and that w hile caring for the minor, mother was under
the influence of methamphetamine, which placed the minor at risk of physical harm

. As
to father, t he petition alleged that his wh ereabouts were unknown.
At the jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court su stained one count under section
300, subdivi sion (b) against mother.
Father appeared at the six

- month review. He fil l ed out a “Statement Regarding
Parentage” form and stated his belief that he was the minor’s parent. The juvenile court

declared him the presumed father. He was granted monitored visitation and or dered to
drug test.
On January 22, 2014, father failed to drug test as requested , and then missed a
second appointment to drug test on February 4, 2014. He drug tested on February 5

, 2014, and the result was positive for amphetamines and methamphetamines. The
following month, t he Department filed a section 342 petition on behalf of the min or alleging that she was at risk of harm within the meaning of section 300, subdivision (b)

, due to father’ s history of using illicit drugs, which rendered him incapable of providing
the minor with regular care

.

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.3

A social worker attempted to contact father at the phone number on file for him,
but the number was no longer in service. Mother and relatives report ed that he was living
at Travel Inn Motel on Sepulveda Boulevard. The social worker sent letters to the hotel,
and to a paternal aunt. Father never responded.
In the jurisdiction/disposition report, the Department stated that father was
uncooperative th roughout the course of the investigation, he tested positive for drugs, he
had a no show for a drug test that was cons idered a positive test, and he has a long
criminal history related to drugs. It added, “ [The minor] is well bonded with father and

father maintains regular contact with her. However, [the minor’s] safety and well being
will be compromised if father does not seek professional help to address his problem.
Therefore, father needs to maintain a healthy and sober life by testing clean, complet ing a
substance abuse and parenting education program and individual counseling to address

various c ase related issues[.]”
On March, 14, 2014, the s ection 342 petition was sustained

. This timely appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

“ In any case in which a minor has been found to be a person described by Section
300 and the petitioner alleges new facts or circumstances, other than those under which
the original petition was sustained, sufficient to state that the minor is a person described
in Section 300, the petiti oner shall file a subsequent petition. ” (§ 342.)
Under section 300, subdivision (b), a child is a dependent if there is a substantial
risk that she will suffer harm because a parent is unable to provide regular care due to the parent’s substance abuse.
Whether a parent’s drug use qualifies as drug abuse is for the juvenile court to

decide based on the facts of each case. ( In re Christopher R. (2014 ) 225 Cal.App.4th
1210, 1219 ( Christopher R .) [looking at the facts as a whole and not applying any stric t4

definitions when finding substantial evidence of drug abuse] .) 2 If a child is “six years old
or younger at the time of the jurisdiction hearing.

. . [,] ‘the finding of substance abuse is
prima facie evidence of the inability of a parent or guardian to provide regular care resulting in a substantial risk of harm’ [citation s ].” ( Id. at p. 1219 .)
Here, jurisdiction is properly based on the findings sustained against mother. That
said, we exercise our discretion to reach the merits of father’s challenge t o the findings
sustained against him because they may be prejudicial to him in future dependency
proceedings. ( In re D.P. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 89 8 , 902.) We must affirm the juvenile court’s findings as long as they are supported by substantial evidenc e. ( In re
Quentin H. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 608, 613.)
The record establishes that the minor was five years old at the time of the ruling on
the section 342 petition. Father had two missed drugs tests (which are presumed to be
positive), and then teste d positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine after his drug

test ing on February 5, 2014. Combined with father’s criminal drug history, those failed
drug tests support an implied finding of drug abuse within the meaning of section 300,
subdivision (b). The use of methamphetamine destroys lives, and until father receives
treatment, he poses a risk of harm to the minor.

2 We join Christopher R. in choosing not to follow In re Drake M. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 754, 766 ( Drake M. ) [a finding of substance abuse must be based on a diagnosis of substance abuse by a medical professional, or evidence that a parent meets the definition of substance abu se in the DSMA

- IV

- TR]

. As explained in Christopher R.

, the Drake M. definition “is not a comprehensive, e xclusive definition mandated by either the Legislatur e or the Supreme Court

. . . . ” ( Christopher R

., supra , 255 Cal.App.4th at
p. 1218.)5 DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

.

__________________________, Acting P. J. ASHMANN

- GERST

We concur:

_____ ________________________,J. CHAVEZ

_____________________________,J.

HOFFSTADT