Filed 6/27/13 In re Peter S. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Co urt of Los Angeles County. Daniel Zeke Zeidler, Judge. Affirmed. Megan Turkat Schirn, under appointmen t 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 Count y Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________ _________________2 Cynthia S. (Mother) appeals from an orde r of the juvenile court awarding sole legal and physical custod y of her four children to their respective fathers. 1 We affirm.

FACTS AND PROC EEDINGS BELOW At the time the dependen cy 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 liv ing with Enrique R., th e father of Esther and David. Mother shared ph ysical 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, appr oximately a week after David’s birth, when
Mother was admitted to a ho spital complaining of abdomi nal 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 us ed the drug the first five months of her pregnancy with Davi d but did not know that she was pre gnant. 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 fro m 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 f iled 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 us ing amphetamine and methamphetamine and marijuana, had used th e former drugs during her recent pregnancy with David, had tested positive for methampheta mine a week after David’s birth and that on prior occasions she was under the influe nce of amphetamine, methamphetamine and marijuana while the children we re in her care. The petition, as amended by the court, also alleged that Enrique sh ould have known ab out 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 child ren’s physical health and safety, placing the children at risk of phys ical harm, damage, da nger and failure to protect.” The court held a detention hearing on Nove mber 10, 2011, and found a prima facie
case had been established. The court rem oved the children from Mother’s custody and released them to their respec tive fathers under the supervision of the DCFS. The release
of Esther and Da vid to Enrique was conditioned on Enrique and the children residing with the paternal great grandmother. The cour t also ordered Mother to submit to weekly random drug testing. Between the detention hearing in Novemb er 2011 and the adjudication hearing in March 2012 Mother failed to appear fo r drug testing four times and repeatedly
refused to meet with a DCFS investigator to make a st atement regarding the case. At the March 2012 adjudication hearing, Mother testified it had been “years” since she had used amphetamine or methamphe tamine. 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 approximatel y 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 w ith David. Mother also tes tified 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 sec tion 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 car e and supervision.” The court ordered that the children remain in the custody of th eir 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 visita tion with all four children. A six-month review hearing was scheduled for August 2012. The hearin g was continued at Mother’s request to
October 2012. Between the adjudication hearing in Ma rch 2012 and the six-month review hearing in October 2012, Mother tested pos itive for opiates, hydrocortisone, and alcohol in March 2012 and for amphetamine and meth amphetamine in June 2012 and failed to appear for six other tests.
When Peter and Daniel returned from a we ekend visit with Moth er 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 sh e 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 dependen cy 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 returnin g the children to Mother woul d 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 syst em . . . with her blaming it on5 everyone else.” The court terminated juve nile court jurisdiction over the children and granted the fathers sole legal and physical cu stody of the children. Mother was granted
monitored visits with the children on specified days. Mother filed appeals from the order term inating jurisdiction and the order granting custody to the fathers. We conso lidated the appeals. (See fn. 1, ante .)
DISCUSSION The juvenile court’s decision to termin ate 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 cour t 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. Moth er’s inclusion of a ba g 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 subs tantial danger the teenagers would experiment with its use. (Cf. In re Rocco , supra, 1 Cal.App.4th at p. 825 [infer ence of substantial risk of serious physical harm when child “placed in an environment allowing access to drugs” with nothing to prevent “succumbing to the tempta tion to ingest them”].)6 DISPOSITION
The orders are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

.

ROTHSCHILD, J. We concur:

MALLANO, P. J.

JOHNSON, J.