Filed 12/14/20 In re E.S. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 E.S., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 B304050

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 

18CCJP08208E)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF 

CHILDREN AND FAMILY 

SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

LAKHWINDER S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Sabina A. Helton, Judge. Affirmed.
2

Liana Serobian, 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. 

_____________________________

Lakhwinder S., presumed father of one-year-old E.S., 

appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating dependency 

jurisdiction with an order granting E.S.’s mother, Luisa A., sole 

legal and physical custody and limiting Lakhwinder to monitored 

visitation. Lakhwinder contends the court’s order terminating 

jurisdiction was not supported by substantial evidence. We 

affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. The Petition on Behalf of Luisa’s Older Children

In December 2018, while Luisa was pregnant with E.S., the 

Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services 

(Department) filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions 

Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1),

1 on behalf of Luisa’s 

four older children, then between the ages of five and 17. The 

petition alleged Luisa had mental and emotional problems that 

rendered her incapable of providing the children regular care and 

placed them at risk of serious physical harm. The petition also 

alleged Luisa had created a detrimental and dangerous home 

environment by allowing Lakhwinder, who was not the father of 

Luisa’s older children, to live in the home despite his mental and 

1 Statutory references are to this code.
3

emotional problems, including self-mutilating behavior, and his 

alcohol abuse. 

On December 27, 2018, the juvenile court ordered 

Lakhwinder to move out of the home and have no contact with 

Luisa’s children.

2. The Detention of E.S.

After E.S. was born in February 2019, a new referral to the 

Department was generated based on the allegations in the 

pending petition regarding her half-siblings. When interviewed 

by a Department social worker on March 4, 2019, Luisa said she 

had met Lakhwinder in December 2017 while they were both 

involuntarily hospitalized with psychiatric issues. Shortly after 

they were released, Luisa had invited Lakhwinder to move into 

the home she shared with her children. Luisa explained the 

children were afraid of Lakhwinder because he drank excessively 

and said he wanted to harm himself. On one occasion 

Lakhwinder had cut his arm and used his blood to write a “love 

note” to Luisa. Luisa reported she had been compliant with the 

court’s order prohibiting contact between Lakhwinder and her 

older children.

Before E.S. was born, Luisa had obtained permission from 

the Department for Lakhwinder to be present at the birth; and he 

stayed with her during her three-day hospitalization. Luisa 

reported she had seen him take his prescribed medication during 

that time and he appeared stable. She said she was planning to 

take the baby to a friend’s house so Lakhwinder could visit the 

baby without violating the court order. The social worker 

explained the Department’s concerns about the baby’s safety 

while visiting her father. Luisa stated she understood the 
4

concerns but did not believe Lakhwinder would harm E.S. Luisa 

expressed her desire to continue a relationship with Lakhwinder.

Regarding her mental health history Luisa reported she 

had been involuntarily hospitalized twice due to psychiatric 

issues. In 2014 she was placed on a psychiatric hold after 

behaving erratically during a traffic stop. She was diagnosed 

with depression and was told she had a panic attack. She was 

not medicated during the hospital stay and was discharged 

without prescription medication. Luisa explained the incident 

had been triggered by learning of her then-husband’s infidelity. 

In December 2017 Luisa was again placed on an 

involuntary psychiatric hold after her brother became concerned 

about her uncontrollable screaming and crying. She spent

approximately five days in the hospital and was initially 

diagnosed with schizophrenia, but the diagnosis was later 

changed to bipolar disorder. She had been given medication 

while in the hospital but had been discharged without a 

prescription. Luisa said she had been under a great deal of stress 

because her husband had been murdered and she had been 

attending the assailant’s criminal trial every day. Because of the 

trial, she had not been able to work; could not sleep; and did not 

know how she would pay her bills. She believes this stress led to 

her “episode.” 

Luisa reported she had been seeing a therapist weekly and 

was learning strategies to cope with stress and feel calmer. She 

did not believe the bipolar diagnosis was accurate and had been 

attempting to get approval for a psychiatric evaluation but was 

encountering problems with her insurance. She said, if she were 

prescribed medication, she would take it.
5

The social worker observed Luisa’s interactions with E.S. 

were positive and the baby appeared healthy and well cared for. 

Luisa’s four older children told the social worker they felt safe 

with their mother. Luisa’s oldest daughter said Luisa seemed 

stable and was capable of caring for the baby.

The social worker spoke to Lakhwinder by telephone on 

March 6, 2019. The social worker reported Lakhwinder sounded 

highly intoxicated; he was belligerent, did not make sense and 

said he wanted to kill himself. A few days later Lakhwinder was 

placed on a two-day involuntary psychiatric hold. Lakhwinder 

later told the social worker he had one beer prior to their March 6 

conversation and did not remember it. He said he did not 

normally drink and he did not have thoughts of hurting himself. 

When the social worker told Luisa about her initial call with 

Lakhwinder, Luisa agreed not to allow him to visit the baby until 

a court order was in place.

On March 13, 2019 the Department obtained authorization 

to detain E.S. from Lakhwinder. E.S. remained in Luisa’s 

custody.

The Department filed a petition on March 15, 2019 

pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b)(1), alleging Luisa’s and 

Lakhwinder’s mental and emotional problems rendered them 

incapable of providing regular care to E.S. and placed E.S. at 

substantial risk of serious physical harm.2 The petition also 

2 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 

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 
6

alleged Lakhwinder’s history of substance abuse and current 

abuse of alcohol placed E.S. at substantial risk of serious physical 

harm.

In the detention report filed the same day as the petition,

the Department recommended E.S. be detained from 

Lakhwinder. The Department stated E.S. could safely remain 

with Luisa because Luisa had been addressing her own mental 

health and cooperating with the Department, and had not 

allowed Lakhwinder to return to the home. At the detention 

hearing on March 18, 2019 E.S. was detained from Lakhwinder

and released to Luisa.

3. The Jurisdiction/Disposition Report

In a report filed on April 22, 2019 the Department stated 

E.S. was healthy and remained stable in Luisa’s care.

The report provided additional information regarding 

Luisa’s mental health history and treatment. After she was 

released from the involuntary psychiatric hold in December 2017, 

Luisa had attempted to obtain a psychiatric evaluation and 

medication, if necessary. However, once she became pregnant 

with E.S., her obstetrician told her not to take any medication. 

Luisa had been seeing a therapist weekly since June 2018. The 

therapist reported Luisa had made progress in establishing 

coping skills and was proactive in utilizing the resources 

available to her. Luisa had also enrolled in a 16-week parenting 

class and a 12-week domestic violence class.

child . . . or by the inability of the parent or guardian to provide 

regular care for the child due to the parent’s or guardian’s mental 

illness, developmental disability, or substance abuse.”
7

In interviews with the social worker Luisa said she had 

been concerned with Lakhwinder’s behavior prior to the 

Department’s involvement. Lakhwinder did not regularly take 

his prescribed medication, and he drank excessively. While living 

with Luisa in 2018, Lakhwinder was hospitalized for psychiatric 

issues on at least one occasion. During one incident he became 

upset and hit himself on the head with a frying pan in front of 

one of Luisa’s children. In June 2018 Luisa told Lakhwinder to 

move out because she was afraid for her children. After two 

months she allowed him to return because he said he had stopped 

drinking. When Lakhwinder began drinking again, Luisa told 

him he had to leave by the end of November. At that point the 

Department intervened, and Lakhwinder moved out.

Luisa understood Lakhwinder could not have contact with 

her older children, but she stated she would otherwise consider 

allowing him to return to the home if he had a job, completed a 

substance abuse program and attended therapy. 

The Department reported Lakhwinder had been in therapy 

since January 2019. He had been diagnosed with “major 

depressive disorder, severe with psychotic features.” Lakhwinder

admitted he drank alcohol and used methamphetamine to cope 

with stressors, and he tested positive for methamphetamine in 

April 2019.3 However, he said he would be compliant with his 

medication and do whatever was necessary to reconcile with 

Luisa and live with her and E.S.

Lakhwinder had monitored visits once per week with E.S. 

Generally, Lakhwinder engaged with E.S. appropriately. 

3 On April 30, 2019 the Department filed a first amended 

petition, adding methamphetamine abuse to the allegation 

regarding Lakhwinder’s substance abuse.
8

However, on one occasion he remained upset that he had gotten 

lost on the way to the visit and destroyed his telephone by 

breaking it into small pieces and biting it.

The Department recommended E.S. be removed from 

Lakhwinder and released to Luisa. The Department believed 

Luisa had limited coping skills and needed continued treatment 

to address her past trauma and make appropriate choices for her 

children. The Department also expressed concern Luisa lacked 

insight into the dangers posed by Lakhwinder’s untreated 

substance abuse. As for Lakhwinder, the Department concluded

his unresolved substance abuse and mental health issues 

severely impacted his ability to function and he did not 

understand the dangers his behavior presented to E.S.

4. The Jurisdiction/Disposition Hearing

At the jurisdiction/disposition hearing on May 8, 2019 

Lakhwinder entered a waiver of rights and pleaded no contest to 

the allegations in the petition. Luisa’s counsel asked the court to 

dismiss the petition as to Luisa, arguing there was no evidence 

her mental health had interfered with her ability to care for E.S. 

Luisa had not allowed Lakhwinder back into the home after the 

court’s order in her older children’s case, and there had been no 

new concerns raised since E.S.’s birth. E.S.’s counsel requested 

the court sustain the petition, arguing Luisa’s mental health 

issues likely contributed to her lapse in judgment in allowing 

Lakhwinder to live in the home with her older children despite 

his erratic behavior. In requesting the court sustain the petition, 

the Department expressed concern Luisa had refused to sign a 

waiver allowing it to have direct contact with her therapist; as a 

result, her current diagnosis was unknown.
9

The court amended the petition by interlineation to include 

a statement Lakhwinder had been involuntary hospitalized on at 

least one occasion and sustained the petition as amended. The 

court explained it believed Luisa had placed the older children at 

risk by allowing Lakhwinder to live in the home and her 

willingness to do so was “indicative of her mental illness.”4 

Proceeding immediately to disposition, the court declared 

E.S. a dependent of the court, removed her from Lakhwinder’s 

custody and released her to Luisa. Family maintenance services 

were ordered for Luisa and enhancement services for 

Lawkwinder. Luisa’s case plan included parenting classes, 

counseling and a psychiatric evaluation.

5. The Status Review Hearing and Termination of 

Jurisdiction

In a report filed October 18, 2019 the Department stated 

E.S. was doing well in her mother’s care and the baby had a 

strong bond with her mother and half-siblings. Luisa had 

completed a parenting class, and the social worker observed 

Luisa was proud of completing the class and enjoyed 

demonstrating and discussing what she had learned. 

Luisa continued to attend weekly therapy sessions. The 

therapist, who was in regular contact with the social worker, 

reported Luisa had made progress toward her treatment goals. 

However, Luisa had yet to complete a psychiatric evaluation. 

The therapist reported Luisa did not qualify for an evaluation 

through the organization where she took classes because of her 

immigration status. According to a last minute information filed 

4 During the same hearing the juvenile court sustained the 

petition as to the older children and released them to Luisa.
10

November 5, 2019, Luisa had identified a psychiatrist and 

scheduled an assessment for early November. Luisa had refused 

to grant the Department access to her mental health records 

because she felt it would be unfair to judge her current mental 

state by her behavior during prior stressful episodes. 

The Department reported Luisa had made progress toward 

completing her case plan. The social worker stated she “has 

observed mother to always put her children’s needs as her 

priority. Mother has demonstrated the skills and knowledge that 

she has acquired through her Court ordered programs, and as 

such understands that [Lakhwinder’s] presence in the home as 

well as his unstable mental health might compromise the safety 

of the children. . . . Although Mother cares for [Lakhwinder], 

during this period of review, mother has placed more emphasis 

on her children’s safety and wellbeing.” 

Lakhwinder made minimal progress on his case plan 

during this period. For the most part he stayed away from 

Luisa’s home, but he did show up on one occasion while under the 

influence of methamphetamine. Luisa was not home at the time, 

but she immediately informed the Department of Lakhwinder’s 

behavior when she found out. Lakhwinder repeatedly tested 

positive for methamphetamine and was again briefly hospitalized 

for psychiatric reasons. However, in early October 2019 

Lakhwinder enrolled in a 90-day inpatient psychiatric and drug 

treatment program. As of a last minute information filed 

December 26, 2019, Lakhwinder was still enrolled in the program 

and was scheduled to move to a sober living facility in 

January 2020.

In the October 2019 status report the Department 

recommended continued jurisdiction and services for both 
11

parents. However, in the December 26, 2019 last minute 

information, the Department recommended termination of 

jurisdiction with an order granting sole legal and physical 

custody to Luisa with monitored visitation for Lakhwinder.5 The 

Department concluded Lakhwinder was still early in his recovery 

and was not yet stable enough to care for an infant.

The contested review hearing was held on January 6, 2020. 

E.S.’s counsel joined in the Department’s recommendation, noting 

an individual from her office had visited the home and observed 

Luisa was appropriate with E.S. and the baby was well cared for. 

Lakhwinder’s counsel argued against terminating jurisdiction 

because Luisa had not complied with “some mental health 

components” of her case plan and, “without any verification that 

the mother has actually engaged in her mental health 

treatments,” the Department could not confirm the conditions 

warranting initial jurisdiction no longer existed. 

The juvenile court terminated jurisdiction over E.S. and 

granted sole physical and legal custody to Luisa. Lakhwinder 

was awarded monitored visitation for a minimum of three hours 

per week.

DISCUSSION

1. Governing Law and Standard of Review

Section 364, subdivision (a), requires the juvenile court to 

schedule a review hearing at least every six months for a 

dependent child who has not been removed from the physical 

custody of his or her parent or guardian. At the section 364 

review hearing dependency jurisdiction must be terminated 

5 Jurisdiction over Luisa’s older children was terminated on 

November 6, 2019 with sole legal and physical custody to Luisa.
12

unless the conditions that created the need for supervision still 

exist or are likely to exist if supervision is discontinued: “After 

hearing any evidence presented by the social worker, the parent, 

the guardian, or the child, the court shall determine whether 

continued supervision is necessary. The court shall terminate its 

jurisdiction unless the social worker or his or her department 

establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the conditions 

still exist which would justify initial assumption of jurisdiction 

under Section 300, or that those conditions are likely to exist if 

supervision is withdrawn.” (§ 364, subd. (c); see In re 

Shannon M. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 282, 290-291 [section 364, 

subdivision (c), establishes a “statutory presumption in favor of 

terminating jurisdiction and returning the children to the 

parents’ care without court supervision”].) “While the statute 

speaks in terms of the social worker or department establishing 

the basis for the continuation of dependency jurisdiction, the 

first sentence of section 364(c) makes clear that the parent, the 

guardian, or the child may offer evidence on that question.” 

(In re Aurora P. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1155.) Accordingly, 

the party opposing termination of dependency jurisdiction bears 

the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence 

that conditions justifying initial assumption of dependency 

jurisdiction either still existed or were likely to exist if 

supervision were withdrawn. (Id. at pp. 1147, 1155-1156.) “The 

juvenile court makes this determination based on the totality of 

the evidence before it.” (In re Armando L. (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 

606, 615.)

Generally, we review the juvenile court’s decision whether 

to terminate jurisdiction for substantial evidence. (In re 

Aurora P., supra, 241 Cal.App.4th at p. 1156; In re N.S. (2002) 
13

97 Cal.App.4th 167, 172.) Under this standard “‘[w]e review the 

record to determine whether there is any substantial evidence to 

support the juvenile court’s conclusions, and we resolve all 

conflicts and make all reasonable inferences from the evidence to 

uphold the court’s orders, if possible.’” (In re Kadence P. (2015) 

241 Cal.App.4th 1376, 1384; accord, In re Drake M. (2012) 

211 Cal.App.4th 754, 763.)

When the party opposing termination of jurisdiction has 

failed to carry its burden of proof, however, the question for a 

reviewing court is “‘whether the evidence compels a finding in 

favor of the appellant[s] as a matter of law.’” (In re Aurora P., 

supra, 241 Cal.App.4th at p. 1163.) Specifically, the question 

becomes whether the appellant’s “evidence ‘was . . . 

“uncontradicted and unimpeached” and . . . “of such a character 

and weight as to leave no room for a judicial determination that 

it was insufficient to support a finding.”’” (Id. at p. 1164.) 

2. The Evidence Does Not Compel Continued Dependency 

Jurisdiction as a Matter of Law

Lakhwinder argues jurisdiction should not have been 

terminated because Luisa had not obtained a mental health 

assessment as required by her case plan.6 However, Lakhwinder 

6 On appeal Lakhwinder also argues the juvenile court 

should have retained jurisdiction because Luisa’s oldest daughter 

had recently moved out of the home to attend college and her 

absence would deprive E.S. of the “oversight” of her “strongest 

advocate.” In addition, Lakhwinder contends an additional six 

months of services would have allowed him to further his sobriety 

and his chances of reunification with E.S. These arguments are 

forfeited because they were not raised in the juvenile court. 

(See In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293 [forfeiture doctrine 
14

failed to present any evidence, let alone conclusive evidence, the 

lack of a mental health assessment created a substantial risk 

E.S. would be neglected or suffer serious physical harm such that 

the grounds for the court’s initial assumption of dependency 

jurisdiction still existed. 

Luisa had been attending therapy for 18 months, and 

neither her therapist nor the Department had expressed any 

concerns regarding her ability to appropriately care for E.S. 

Throughout the case the Department’s primary concern 

regarding Luisa’s mental health was her poor judgment in 

allowing Lakhwinder to have contact with her children. By the 

section 364 hearing, the Department had concluded this risk was 

mitigated because Luisa had gained insight into the risks posed 

by Lakhwinder’s behavior and Luisa had adamantly expressed 

her understanding her children’s safety must be her priority. 

While Lakhwinder is correct there was no evidence Luisa 

had undergone a psychiatric evaluation as ordered by the court, 

there was ample evidence of her compliance with the remainder 

of her case plan; and she had made arrangements for a 

psychiatric evaluation prior to the review hearing. In the 

absence of a specific potential risk to E.S., Luisa’s mental health 

issues alone were not sufficient to overcome the statutory 

presumption in favor of terminating jurisdiction. (See In re 

Joaquin C. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 537, 563 [“mental illness is not 

itself a justification for exercising dependency jurisdiction over a 

child”]; In re James R. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 129, 136 

[speculative future harm based on parent’s mental health 

insufficient to support finding minor at substantial risk of future 

applies in dependency proceedings]; In re Wilford J. (2005) 

131 Cal.App.4th 742, 754.)
15

harm].) On this record, the evidence does not compel a finding 

the court should have retained dependency jurisdiction.

DISPOSITION

The order terminating jurisdiction is affirmed.

PERLUSS, P. J.

We concur:

FEUER, J.

RICHARDSON, J.*

* Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, assigned 

by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the 

California Constitution.