Filed 6/27/13 In re Peter S. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 PETER S., et al., Persons Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law. 

 B243809, B245090 

 (Los Angeles County 

 Super. Ct. No. CK90693) 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND 

FAMILY SERVICES, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

CYNTHIA S., 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Daniel Zeke 

Zeidler, Judge. Affirmed. 

 Megan Turkat Schirn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant 

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

Jessica S. Mitchell, Senior Associate County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

____________________________________ 
2

 Cynthia S. (Mother) appeals from an order of the juvenile court awarding sole 

legal and physical custody of her four children to their respective fathers.1

 We affirm. 

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW 

 At the time the dependency petition was filed in November 2011, Mother 

had four children: Peter S., age 13, Daniel S., age 11, Esther R., age 6, and David R., 

age 0 months. Mother and the children were living with Enrique R., the father of Esther 

and David. Mother shared physical and legal custody of Peter and Daniel with their 

father, Peter S., Sr. 

 The family came to the attention of the Department of Children and Family 

Services (DCFS) on November 5, 2011, approximately a week after David’s birth, when 

Mother was admitted to a hospital complaining of abdominal pain. At the hospital 

Mother tested positive for methamphetamine. 

A DCFS worker made a home visit the day after Mother was discharged from the 

hospital. Mother divulged to the worker that she had used methamphetamine on and off 

for approximately 10 years. She said she used the drug the first five months of her 

pregnancy with David but did not know that she was pregnant. Mother also admitted that 

she used methamphetamine just before she was hospitalized. Despite her history of 

methamphetamine use, Mother denied using the drug on a regular basis and denied that 

its use was dangerous. She told the worker that she heard using methamphetamine 

“cured cancer.” 

Enrique, the father of Esther and David, denied knowledge of Mother’s current 

methamphetamine use or that she used the drug while she was pregnant with David. 

 

1

 Mother also appealed from the court’s order terminating dependency jurisdiction 

over the children but her failure to discuss that issue in her briefs forfeits the issue on 

appeal. (Christoff v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 118, 125.) 
3

A few days after the home visit the DCFS filed a dependency petition as to all four 

children under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b),2

 alleging that 

Mother had a 10-year history of illicit drug use, was currently using amphetamine and 

methamphetamine and marijuana, had used the former drugs during her recent pregnancy 

with David, had tested positive for methamphetamine a week after David’s birth and that 

on prior occasions she was under the influence of amphetamine, methamphetamine and 

marijuana while the children were in her care. The petition, as amended by the court, 

also alleged that Enrique should have known about Mother’s illicit drug use and was 

unable to protect the children. Finally, the petition alleged that Mother’s drug use and 

Enrique’s inability to protect the children “endangers the children’s physical health and 

safety, placing the children at risk of physical harm, damage, danger and failure to 

protect.” 

The court held a detention hearing on November 10, 2011, and found a prima facie 

case had been established. The court removed the children from Mother’s custody and 

released them to their respective fathers under the supervision of the DCFS. The release 

of Esther and David to Enrique was conditioned on Enrique and the children residing 

with the paternal great grandmother. The court also ordered Mother to submit to weekly 

random drug testing. 

Between the detention hearing in November 2011 and the adjudication hearing 

in March 2012 Mother failed to appear for drug testing four times and repeatedly 

refused to meet with a DCFS investigator to make a statement regarding the case. 

At the March 2012 adjudication hearing, Mother testified it had been “years” 

since she had used amphetamine or methamphetamine. She did not recall being tested 

for methamphetamine in November 2011 and had “no idea” why the test came back 

positive. She denied telling a DCFS worker in November 2011 that she had used 

methamphetamine on and off for approximately 10 years and had used it in the first 

 

2

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

five months of her pregnancy with David. Mother also testified that she never told the 

DCFS worker that she believed methamphetamine cured cancer and that the worker was 

just “making that statement up.” 

The court sustained the petition under section 300, subdivision (b). It found true 

the allegations that Mother is a current user of illicit drugs which renders her “incapable 

of providing the children with regular care and supervision.” The court ordered 

that the children remain in the custody of their fathers and that Mother receive family 

reunification services. Mother was ordered, among other things, to complete a drug and 

alcohol treatment program with weekly random and on-demand drug testing. The court 

awarded Mother monitored visitation with all four children. A six-month review hearing 

was scheduled for August 2012. The hearing was continued at Mother’s request to 

October 2012. 

Between the adjudication hearing in March 2012 and the six-month review 

hearing in October 2012, Mother tested positive for opiates, hydrocortisone, and alcohol 

in March 2012 and for amphetamine and methamphetamine in June 2012 and failed to 

appear for six other tests. 

When Peter and Daniel returned from a weekend visit with Mother in April 2012 

their father found among their belongings a bag of white powder that Mother, probably 

accidentally, sent home with them. The white powder turned out to be cocaine. 

At the six-month review hearing Mother explained the March positive test was 

the result of taking Vicodin for a toothache and denied that she tested positive in June. 

She accused her former DCFS worker of engaging in “a lot of fabrications.” She blamed 

Peter’s father for instigating the dependency case by telling the DCFS that she had 

abandoned the baby, David, and was incapable of caring for him. Mother was not asked 

about the bag of cocaine. 

The court found that returning the children to Mother would pose a substantial risk 

of harm to their physical and mental health. It concluded that Mother “has made no 

progress in the entire year that this case has been in the system . . . with her blaming it on 
5

everyone else.” The court terminated juvenile court jurisdiction over the children and 

granted the fathers sole legal and physical custody of the children. Mother was granted 

monitored visits with the children on specified days. 

Mother filed appeals from the order terminating jurisdiction and the order granting 

custody to the fathers. We consolidated the appeals. (See fn. 1, ante.) 

DISCUSSION 

The juvenile court’s decision to terminate dependency jurisdiction and issue a 

custody order pursuant to section 362.4 is reviewed for abuse of discretion. (In re 

Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318.) The court did not abuse its discretion in this 

case. 

Mother relies heavily on our decision in Destiny S. for the proposition that the 

parent’s use of illicit substances “‘without more’” is not a sufficient basis for removing a 

minor from the parent’s custody. (In re Destiny S. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 999, 1003 

[methamphetamine and marijuana]; see also In re Rocco M. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 814, 

826 [cocaine].) 

In this case, however, there is more. Mother’s inclusion of a bag of cocaine in her 

teenage sons’ belongings, albeit inadvertently, suggests that when they visit her they are 

in an environment where drugs are kept and used. Moreover, Mother exposed her sons to 

an illicit drug and created a substantial danger the teenagers would experiment with its 

use. (Cf. In re Rocco, supra, 1 Cal.App.4th at p. 825 [inference of substantial risk of 

serious physical harm when child “placed in an environment allowing access to drugs” 

with nothing to prevent “succumbing to the temptation to ingest them”].) 
6

DISPOSITION 

The orders are affirmed. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED. 

 ROTHSCHILD, J. 

We concur: 

 MALLANO, P. J. 

 JOHNSON, J.