Filed 12/5/22 In re Adilynn A. CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re ADILYNN A., a Person 

Coming Under the Juvenile 

Court Law.

 B317156

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 

21CCJP04836A)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF 

CHILDREN AND FAMILY 

SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CHRISTIAN A. et al.,

Defendants and 

Appellants.

APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, Terry T. Truong, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.
2

Richard L. Knight, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Christian A.

Benjamin Ekenes, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Maria C.

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

Assistant County Counsel, and Stephen Watson, Senior Deputy 

County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

_____________________________________

Christian A. and Maria C., the parents of 19-month-old 

Adilynn A., appeal the jurisdiction findings supporting the 

juvenile court’s order declaring Adilynn a dependent child of the 

court, contending the findings were not supported by substantial 

evidence. Christian also appeals the disposition order requiring 

him to submit to random drug testing. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. Adilynn’s Detention

On August 28, 2021 the Los Angeles County Department of 

Children and Family Services received a report that Christian 

and Maria had engaged in a physical altercation in the early 

morning hours while Adilynn was in another room of their home. 

When interviewed by a Department social worker 10 days later, 

Christian explained he and Maria had been in a relationship for a 

year and a half and lived with Christian’s parents and brother. 

On the day of the altercation Christian and Maria had taken 

Adilynn to the home of Maria’s father for dinner. Maria drank 

five or six beers and was intoxicated. When they returned home,

they argued about money. Christian asked Maria to leave the 

home so the fight would not escalate. After taking a short walk 

Maria returned. According to Christian, Maria became extremely 

agitated and climbed onto a second story windowsill, threatening 
3

to jump. When Christian pulled Maria inside the home, she bit 

his arm, causing him to bleed. Christian’s mother, Carmen A., 

called the police, who arrested Maria for domestic violence. 

Adilynn was in another room during the incident. Christian told 

the social worker a similar domestic violence incident had 

occurred in December 2020, but he did not provide any details. 

Maria’s account of the incident was almost identical to 

Christian’s. Maria admitted she bit Christian when he pulled 

her off the windowsill. Maria denied having any suicidal 

thoughts; she insisted she had climbed onto the windowsill only 

to get attention. According to the police report Maria had told 

the responding police officers she had climbed off the windowsill 

on her own and then Christian pinned her down. The officers 

observed a bruise on Maria’s left shoulder and a small scratch on 

her right shoulder. 

Los Angeles Police Department call logs contained accounts 

of two additional recent incidents involving the family. According 

to the logs, on June 23, 2021 Maria attempted suicide by taking 

unknown prescription drugs. Maria told responding officers she 

was not suicidal. She denied taking any medications but 

admitted she had been drinking. She refused medical treatment,

and police determined she did not meet the criteria for a 

psychiatric hold. The record does not indicate where the incident 

occurred or whether Adilynn was present.

Another incident occurred on July 31, 2021. One of 

Christian’s parents called the police because Christian and Maria 

were “throwing items, yelling, and broke a window.” The 

reporting party was fearful the argument would escalate. 

Christian and Maria had left by the time police arrived. Adilynn

was in the home with Christian’s parents.
4

Carmen told the social worker that Christian and Maria 

had verbal arguments during which they yelled, but she stated 

they did not physically fight. Carmen encouraged Christian to be 

patient with Maria because Maria had many “monsters and 

demons.” Carmen stated Christian and Maria are “trouble” and 

they needed help and support. She also said Adilynn was with 

Maria and Christian at all times and they were very attentive 

parents. Carmen worked full-time, but she said, if necessary, she 

would assist with finding and paying for a babysitter for Adilynn.

The social worker also interviewed Maria’s father, Jorge C., 

who stated that Maria suffers from anxiety and she “explodes.” 

Jorge believed Maria was a good mother but needed help with 

her anxiety and sobriety. 

Christian and Maria were both unemployed at the time of 

the August 2021 incident. They stated they wanted to remain in 

a relationship. Despite denying substance use Christian agreed 

to drug testing. He failed to appear for his first scheduled test

and on September 16, 2021 tested positive for high levels of 

marijuana. Maria said she drank occasionally but denied other 

substance use or mental health issues. She tested negative for 

alcohol on September 10, 2021.

On September 22, 2021 the social worker recommended 

that Maria and Christian enroll in individual, parenting and 

domestic violence counseling and provided them with information

to obtain such counseling. Maria and Christian agreed they 

would enroll. One week later neither parent had contacted any of 

the service providers, explaining they were busy with job 

interviews. 

On September 30, 2021 the Department informed Christian 

and Maria it intended to seek court approval to remove Adilynn 
5

from Maria’s custody. Christian refused to enter a proposed 

safety plan in which Maria would move out of the home, stating 

Maria was the primary caregiver for Adilynn while Christian was 

looking for work. A few days later the parents enrolled in 

domestic violence, parenting, anger management, substance 

abuse and individual counseling.

The social worker reported Adilynn appeared healthy and 

comfortable with her parents. However, the Department was 

concerned by the couple’s failure to timely enroll in services. The 

social worker also believed Christian’s lack of insight into the 

harmful effects of Maria’s behavior endangered Adilynn.

The Department filed a petition on October 15, 2021 

pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, 

subdivisions (a) and (b)(1),1 alleging Maria and Christian had a 

history of engaging in violent altercations, Maria had a history of 

alcohol abuse and was a current abuser of alcohol, Maria had 

mental and emotional problems and Christian was a current 

abuser of marijuana. The petition alleged the parents’ conduct 

endangered Adilynn’s physical health and safety.

At the detention hearing on October 20, 2021 the court 

detained Adilynn from Maria and released her to Christian. 

Christian was ordered to submit to drug testing and enroll in 

individual counseling. Maria was ordered to submit to alcohol 

testing and enroll in programs for domestic violence, substance 

abuse and individual counseling. Maria’s visits with Adilynn 

were to be monitored. 

1 Statutory references are to this code.
6

2. The Jurisdiction/Disposition Report

The Department filed its jurisdiction/disposition report on 

November 29, 2021. In an interview with the Department social 

worker Maria admitted she had been drunk during the 

August 2021 incident and had “laid hands” on and bitten 

Christian. Maria said she “can have a problem with alcohol, but I 

feel that I can stop as well.” She stated she was currently sober 

and was able to distract herself from drinking, in part because 

her new job kept her busy. She said Christian smoked marijuana 

often but not in the home. Maria reported she had “really bad” 

anxiety but denied being suicidal—she again claimed her attempt 

to jump out the second-story window was to get attention. Maria 

wanted to enroll in therapy and return to her family.

Christian’s account of the August 2021 incident was 

consistent with his earlier statements. He told the social worker 

that he and Maria previously had only “verbal altercations but 

this time it got out of hand. . . . I was able to get her down [from 

the windowsill] and then she became angry and I was trying to 

restrain her and that is when she bit me.” Christian did not 

consider the incident to be domestic violence. He insisted he and 

Maria did not fight in front of Adilynn. Regarding Maria’s 

drinking, Christian stated she was not an alcoholic but “she 

drinks 6 to 7 tall cans of beer and a cup of hard liquor.” She 

drinks when she gets overwhelmed, but she had stopped drinking 

in the month since she moved out of the family home. Christian 

admitted he had “an issue with marijuana. I have tried to 

change that and for the past [two] weeks I have not smoked any 

marijuana.” He stated, now that he was working, he no longer 

had time to smoke marijuana. Christian wanted Maria to be able 

to return to the family home.
7

Christian and Maria registered for services in early 

October 2021 but were terminated from the program for 

nonattendance six weeks later. Maria had weekly monitored 

visits and daily video calls with Adilynn. The baby appeared 

healthy and happy.

The Department recommended Adilynn continue to be 

removed from Maria’s custody, citing concerns about the parents’ 

escalating confrontations and Maria’s untreated mental health 

and substance abuse issues, which the Department believed were 

a contributing factor in the parents’ altercations.

3. The Jurisdiction/Disposition Hearing

The court held a combined jurisdiction/disposition hearing 

on December 8, 2021. Christian’s counsel argued the domestic 

violence allegations should be dismissed entirely or at least as to 

Christian because the August 2021 incident did not constitute

domestic violence. Counsel also argued the substance abuse 

allegation regarding Christian should be dismissed because there 

was no nexus between his marijuana use and any risk to Adilynn. 

Maria’s counsel likewise argued the domestic violence allegations 

should be dismissed, contending domestic violence was not an 

ongoing issue in the family. Adilynn’s counsel argued the 

section 300, subdivision (b)(1), counts should be sustained.

The juvenile court dismissed the section 300, 

subdivision (a), allegation and amended the subdivision (b)(1) 

allegation regarding domestic violence to state the parents had a 

history of engaging in verbal altercations in addition to physical 

altercations. The court struck the reference to Maria’s arrest on 

August 28, 2021. The court then sustained the domestic violence 

allegation as amended and the substance abuse and mental 

health allegations as pleaded. Regarding the August 28, 2021 
8

incident, the court noted it was not the couple’s first physical 

dispute and, even if the altercation had been caused by Maria’s 

substance abuse or mental health issues, that did not explain 

Christian’s participation. The court also found troubling that the 

family had three police contacts in two months, given that 

Christian and Maria had an infant in their care.

Proceeding immediately to disposition the court removed

Adilynn from Maria’s custody and released her to Christian. 

Christian was ordered to complete random and on-demand drug 

testing showing decreasing levels of marijuana. (His counsel had 

asked that drug testing be based on reasonable suspicion only.) 

Family enhancement services were ordered for Maria, including 

completion of an alcohol program, random and on-demand alcohol 

testing, anger management classes and a psychiatric evaluation.

DISCUSSION

1. Substantial Evidence Supports the Jurisdiction Finding 

Based on Domestic Violence Between Christian and 

Maria 

a. Governing law and standard of review

The purpose of section 300 “is to provide maximum safety 

and protection for children who are currently being physically, 

sexually, or emotionally abused, being neglected, or being 

exploited, and to ensure the safety, protection, and physical and 

emotional well-being of children who are at risk of that harm.” 

(§ 300.2; see In re A.F. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 283, 289; In re 

Giovanni F. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 594, 599.)

Section 300, subdivision (b)(1), allows a child to be 

adjudged a dependent of the juvenile court when “[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 failure or 
9

inability of his or her parent or guardian to adequately supervise 

or protect the child, or the willful or negligent failure of the 

child’s parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the 

child.” A jurisdiction finding under section 300, 

subdivision (b)(1), requires the Department to prove 

three elements: (1) the parent’s or guardian’s neglectful conduct 

or failure or inability to protect the child; (2) causation; and 

(3) serious physical harm or illness or a substantial risk of 

serious physical harm or illness. (In re L.W. (2019) 

32 Cal.App.5th 840, 848; In re Joaquin C. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 

537, 561; see In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 624 

[“section 300(b)(1) authorizes dependency jurisdiction without a 

finding that a parent is at fault or blameworthy for her failure or 

inability to supervise or protect her child”].)

Although section 300 requires proof the child is subject to 

the defined risk of harm at the time of the jurisdiction hearing 

(In re D.L. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1142, 1146), the court need not 

wait until a child is seriously abused or injured to assume 

jurisdiction and take steps necessary to protect the child. (In re

I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773; In re Kadence P. (2015) 

241 Cal.App.4th 1376, 1383; In re N.M. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 

159, 165.) The court may consider past events in deciding 

whether a child currently needs the court’s protection. (In re 

Christopher R. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1215-1216; In re 

N.M., at p. 165.) A parent’s “‘[p]ast conduct may be probative of 

current conditions’ if there is reason to believe that the conduct 

will continue.” (In re S.O. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 453, 461; 

accord, In re J.N. (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 767, 775 [“[e]vidence of 

past conduct may be probative of current conditions and may 
10

assist DCFS in meeting [its burden of proof]”]; In re Kadence P., 

at p. 1384.)

“‘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.’”” (In re 

I.J., supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 773.) We review the whole record in 

the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine 

whether it discloses substantial evidence such that a reasonable 

trier of fact could find that the order is appropriate. (Ibid.; 

accord, In re I.C. (2018) 4 Cal.5th 869, 892.)

b. The Department presented sufficient evidence domestic 

violence between Christian and Maria placed Adilynn 

at substantial risk of serious physical harm

Exposure to domestic violence may serve as the basis for a 

jurisdiction finding under section 300, subdivision (b)(1). (In re

R.C. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 930, 941.) “‘“Both common sense 

and expert opinion indicate spousal abuse is detrimental to 

children.”’” (Id. at p. 942; see In re S.O., supra, 103 Cal.App.4th 

at pp. 460-461 [“‘domestic violence in the same household where 

children are living is neglect; it is a failure to protect [them] from 

the substantial risk of encountering the violence and suffering 

serious physical harm or illness from it’”]; see also In re L.O. 
11

(2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 227, 238 [“[j]urisdiction is appropriate 

since a minor can be ‘put in a position of physical danger from 

this violence, since, for example, they could wander into the room 

where it was occurring and be accidentally hit by a thrown object, 

by a fist, arm, foot or leg’”]; In re T.V. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 126, 

135 [“[e]ven though [the child] had not been physically harmed, 

the cycle of violence between the parents constituted a failure to 

protect her”].)

Christian and Maria argue the evidence did not establish 

they had a history of engaging in physical violence and their 

behavior had not placed Adilynn at risk because she was not in 

the same room during their August 2021 altercation. Contrary to 

their protestations, the evidence demonstrated an ongoing, recent 

and escalating cycle of violence between Christian and Maria. 

Christian told the Department social worker there had been an 

incident in December 2020, while Maria was pregnant, that had 

been similar to the August 28, 2021 incident. While there are no 

details in the record regarding that event, neither parent 

disputes an altercation took place or Christian’s characterization 

of it as similar to the August 28, 2021 incident.

Attempting to minimize the July 31, 2021 incident, 

Christian and Maria acknowledge it involved yelling, throwing 

items and breaking a window, but they argue there was no 

danger to Adilynn because the police log stated no weapons had 

been used or crime committed. Based on that report, Maria 

argues, “If no crime occurred, then neither father nor mother 

committed a battery or assault on each other,” and, therefore, no 

finding of domestic violence can be made. 

This argument betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of 

dependency law and the role of the juvenile court in protecting 
12

children. Counsel cites no authority—indeed, none exists—

supporting the assertion that dependency jurisdiction may be 

based on ongoing domestic violence in a family only if weapons 

were used or a Penal Code violation occurred or that suggests the 

juvenile court’s evaluation of an incident must conform to the 

assessment made by a police officer responding to a domestic 

violence call (let alone to the hearsay summary of that 

assessment in a log). As discussed, dependency jurisdiction

depends upon whether the parents’ behavior presents a 

substantial risk of serious physical harm to the child. The 

evidence that Christian and Maria were throwing items and 

broke a window, causing Christian’s parents to call police out of 

fear the episode would escalate, amply supported the juvenile 

court’s reliance on the July 31, 2021 altercation as a significant 

episode of domestic violence. 

Christian and Maria also attempt to characterize the 

August 28, 2021 incident as one in which Christian was trying to 

protect Maria from jumping out the window rather than as 

another act of domestic violence. This relatively benign 

description, however, omits the argument leading up to Maria’s 

climb onto the windowsill, as well as the altercation that ensued 

after Christian pulled her down, during which Maria became 

angry, Christian tried to restrain her, and she bit him. As a 

result of the altercation, Christian had a significant bite mark on 

his arm (described by a social worker as approximately the size of 

a cigar burn on which the “skin was peeled off”), and Maria had 

injuries to her shoulders. The juvenile court properly considered

the August 28, 2021 altercation an incident of domestic violence.

Even if they engaged in domestic violence, Christian and 

Maria alternatively argue, there was no substantial risk of harm 
13

to Adilynn because she was not present during the incidents. 

However, Adilynn was in the home during two violent incidents 

within a 30-day period and there had been similar incidents in 

the past. The ongoing threat of further violence between her 

parents constituted substantial evidence Adilynn was at 

significant risk of serious physical harm. (See In re T.V., supra, 

217 Cal.App.4th at p. 134 [“[a]lthough [the child] was not present 

at the time, the domestic violence between the parents was 

ongoing and likely to continue, thus placing [the child] at 

substantial risk of physical harm”].)

Finally, Christian and Maria’s argument that there was no 

current risk of harm to Adilynn by the time of the jurisdiction 

hearing is unpersuasive. Maria had moved out of the family 

home in October 2021 as a result of the Department’s 

investigation. However, the couple remained in a relationship 

and expressed a desire that Maria be allowed to return to the 

home. It was reasonable for the juvenile court to conclude that, 

absent Department and court supervision, Maria would return to 

live with Christian and Adilynn. In addition, there was no 

evidence either Christian or Maria had resolved their domestic 

violence issues: They had attended only six and four weeks of a 

domestic violence program, respectively, before being terminated 

for nonattendance, and they did not exhibit any meaningful 

insight into their behavior or the danger it posed to Adilynn. 

Under these circumstances there was sufficient evidence to 

support a finding Adilynn remained at risk of harm at the time of 

the jurisdiction hearing.2 

2 Because substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s 

jurisdiction findings regarding domestic violence as to both 

Christian and Maria, we need not consider their challenges to the 
14

2. The Juvenile Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion by 

Directing Christian To Submit To Random Drug Tests

The child’s best interest is the primary concern of the 

juvenile court, and it may make “‘any and all reasonable orders to 

the parents or guardians’ to ameliorate the conditions that made 

the child subject to the court’s jurisdiction.’” (In re Neil D. (2007) 

155 Cal.App.4th 219, 224; accord, In re K.T. (2020) 

49 Cal.App.5th 20, 24; see § 362, subd. (d) [“[t]he juvenile court 

may direct any reasonable orders to the parents or guardians of 

the child who is the subject of any proceedings under this chapter 

as the court deems necessary and proper to carry out this 

section”].) This provision and others in the Welfare and 

Institutions Code “have been broadly interpreted to authorize a 

wide variety of remedial orders intended to protect the safety and 

well-being of dependent children.” (In re Carmen M (2006) 

141 Cal.App.4th 478, 486; accord, In re Neil D., at p. 224.) 

Accordingly, the juvenile court’s “broad discretion to determine 

what would best serve and protect the child’s interest and to 

fashion a dispositional order in accord with this discretion, 

permits the court to formulate disposition orders to address 

parental deficiencies when necessary to protect and promote the 

child’s welfare, even when that parental conduct did not give rise 

juvenile court’s additional findings. (See In re D.P. (2015)

237 Cal.App.4th 911, 917; In re J.C. (2014) 233 Cal.App.4th 1, 4; 

see also In re I.J., supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 773 [“‘[w]hen a 

dependency petition alleges multiple grounds for its assertion 

that a minor comes within the dependency court’s jurisdiction, a 

reviewing court can affirm the juvenile court’s finding of 

jurisdiction over the minor if any one of the statutory bases for 

jurisdiction that are enumerated in the petition is supported by 

substantial evidence’”].)
15

to the dependency proceedings.” (In re K.T., at p. 25; accord, In re 

Christopher H. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1008.) We review the 

juvenile court’s disposition order under the abuse of discretion 

standard. (In re Baby Boy H. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 470, 474; 

accord, In re Neil D., at p. 225.)

Christian contends there was insufficient evidence to 

support the juvenile court’s finding that his marijuana use posed 

a substantial risk of serious physical harm to Adilynn and, 

therefore, the juvenile court abused its discretion by requiring 

him to submit to random drug testing. However, even in the 

absence of a jurisdiction finding involving a parent’s substance 

abuse, the juvenile court may order an admitted drug user with 

young children to participate in drug testing. (See In re 

Christopher H., supra, 50 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1007-1008 [juvenile 

court acted within its discretion in ordering random drug and 

alcohol testing even though father’s substance use was not basis 

for jurisdiction]; cf. In re Carmen M., supra, 141 Cal.App.4th at

pp. 486-487 [juvenile court is authorized to order dependent child 

to participate in drug testing if reasonably related to protecting 

the child’s safety or well-being].)

Here, Christian admitted to having “an issue” with 

marijuana and to smoking frequently, albeit outside the home. 

This was corroborated by testing that revealed high levels of 

marijuana in his system. Given Adilynn’s young age and the 

court’s order that she be released to Christian, the court 

reasonably concluded it was in the child’s best interests for 

Christian to submit to random drug testing.
16

DISPOSITION

The jurisdiction finding regarding domestic violence and 

the disposition orders are affirmed.

PERLUSS, P. J.

We concur:

SEGAL, J.

FEUER, J.