Filed 10/2/13 In re Ki. S. CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Ki. S., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. B247175
(Los Angeles County

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent.

v.
STEPHEN S.,
Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. CK93874)

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Terry T. Truong, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.

Eva E. Chick, under appointment by th e Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Peter Ferrera, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.2 Appellant Stephen S. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s orders establishing jurisdiction pursuant to Welfare and Institu tions Code section 300, subdivision (j) 1 over his youngest daughter, Ki. (born September 2012), and removing Ki. from her parents’ custody. Father further contends the juven ile court erred by declining to liberalize his visits with Ki.’s four older siblings, Kai (born June 2004), Ka. (born June 2005), Ke. (born November 2007), and Kal. (born August 2010), who were removed from the parents’ custody in June 2012. We affirm the juvenile court’s orders.
BACKGROUND
Detention and section 3 00 petition on behalf of older siblings The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) received a referral on May 18, 20 12, regarding six-ye ar-old Ka., who was feverish and lethargic while at school. Schoo l officials had telephon ed father, who said that he would be at the school momentarily. Several minutes later, father called back and said that the child’s mother, Lisa G. (mot her), would be going to the school instead and that she would be there shortly. Neither pa rent appeared at the school, and subsequent efforts to reach the parents by telephone were unsuccessful. Sc hool officials called 911, and Ka. was transported by ambulance to the Pomona Medical Center. The referring party reported that the parents had a history of neglect and that their children’s attendance at school was poor. The referring party furt her stated that the parents were purported methamphetamine abusers. An investigating social worker vis ited the family home on May 18, 2012, and noticed that the home was messy, with spills, toys, and clothing left on the floor. Mother said she had been at a doctor appointment wh en the school called about Ka. and she did
not learn about the call until she returned home later that day. Father had been unable to reach her because he had misplaced his cell phone. Mother claimed it was her understanding, as well as fathe r’s, that Ka.’s gra ndmother was going to pick the child up because the parents had no transportation. Mother accused the scho ol of overreacting and

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code, unless stated otherwise.3 constantly calling in referrals. The social wo rker asked about drug use, and mother said she and father had drug tested in the past as a condition to receivi ng services. When the social worker then asked the parents if th ey would submit to an on demand drug test, mother replied that she was pregnant and that her pregnancy should be a sufficient indication that she did not use drugs. Both parents refused to drug test.
Father told the social wo rker that when the school telephoned him about Ka. he had called the maternal grandmother. He had th en called the school b ack to inform them that the grandmother was on her way but that it would take her at least an hour to get to
the school. When the social worker asked why father ha d not answered the school’s subsequent telephone calls, fath er claimed the phone’s battery had run out and that he had subsequently misplaced the phone. The Department received notice of a nother referral on May 22, 2012, alleging general neglect and sexual and emotional abus e of the children. An emergency response child protection worker, accompan ied by a Claremont police offi cer, had responded to the family home on the evening of May 21, 2012, but found no immediate evidence of child
abuse. On May 22, 2012, a responding social wo rker interviewed Ka. at her school. The child said everything was fine at home but admitted she was not supposed to talk about it.
Kai was not in school and was re portedly at home with a fever. The social worker visited the family home later that da y and observed Kai outside the home on the driveway. According to mother, Kai was not at school be cause he had a field trip that day but had stayed home because he was si ck. The social worker aske d mother if she and father would agree to drug test that day, and mo ther agreed. Mother acknowledged that she
understood that a missed test woul d be considered a “dirty” test. Later that same day, the social work er spoke by telephone with the paternal grandmother, who asked that her statemen ts remain anonymous because father had
threatened her with violence in the past when she had cr iticized his parenting. The paternal grandmother said that both father and mother abused alcohol and drugs and that methamphetamine was their drug of choice . She expressed concern for the children4 because the parents allowed various people into the home and then passed out or fell asleep, leaving the children unattended. She sa id she had observed Ka. exhibit sexualized behavior. The paternal gra ndmother accused father of selli ng the family’s food stamps for money. She said she and her husband visit the family on a weekly basis to ensure that
the children are safe and that th ere is food in the home for them. The social worker also sp oke with a paternal aunt, who said she was afraid to make a statement about the family because fa ther had threatened he r in the past. The paternal aunt said she and mother drank regu larly and heavily together and that mother and father regularly used methamphetamine, a lthough they never did so in the presence
of the children. On May 23, 2012, the social worker rece ived a message from mother that she and father had failed to drug test the previous da y because they did not have transportation. Mother further stated the parents did not understand why they had been asked to drug

test. The social worker spoke with the maternal grandmot her on May 29, 2012. The maternal grandmother reported domestic violence between the parents and said that she
had observed father and mother screaming at each other in th e presence of the children. She expressed the belief that father was a methamphetamine abuser. When asked about
Ka.’s illness at the school on May 17, 2012, maternal gra ndmother said the school had
called her but she had told the school it would take at least an hour to get there. She said she thereafter attempted to contact father and mother but was unable to reach them. On June 5, 2012, paternal grandmother called the social work er to report that
father had been shot in the fa ce at the family home while the children were present. Ke. had reportedly witnessed the in cident. Father asked paternal grandmother to take the children out of the family home because he was afraid the people who had shot him might return. The Claremont Police Departme nt confirmed that a shooting had occurred in the parents’ home while the children were present. After the shooting, the Department conduc ted further interviews with relatives. The maternal grandmother’s husband, Nelson J ., said that father had left the hospital5 against his doctor’s advice and had arrived with mother at the location where maternal grandmother and the children were staying. Father had attempted to strike maternal grandmother in the presence of the children, but Nelson had intervened. Paternal uncle Danny S. said father ha d been abusing drugs since junior high school and that his drugs of choice were me thamphetamine and marijuana. The paternal grandmother said she was afraid of father an d that she believed father would attempt to burn down her home if she agr eed to take the children. On June 11, 2012, the Department filed a petition under section 300 subdivisions (b) and (j) on behalf of Kai, Ka ., Ke., and Kal., alleging that the children were at risk of harm as the result of the parents’ drug use and failure to obtain timely medical attention for Ka. At the detention hearing, the juvenile court found a prima facie case for detaining
the children and ordered them detained with the paternal grandfather, who lived in northern California. Both parents were accorded monitored visits and family
reunification services and were ordered to participate in ra ndom and on demand testing for drugs and alcohol. Jurisdiction/disposition of section 30 0 petition on beha lf of siblings In its jurisdiction/disposition report date d July 25, 2012, the Department reported that its efforts to interview the parents had been unsuccessful. Bo th parents failed to appear at their scheduled appointments with the dependency investigator, and neither called to reschedule. Father failed to app ear for scheduled drug and alcohol testing on June 14 and 21 and July 3, 2012. Mother tested negative for drugs and alcohol on July 10, 2012, but failed to appear for schedu led testing on June 14 and 18, 2012. The Department’s jurisdiction/disposition report included a copy of the Claremont Police Department’s report of th e June 5, 2012 shooting at the family home. Father told the police that five men had approached him while he was out walking and that one of
them had shot him. Police found blood on th e pathway leading to th e front door of the home and a large quantity of blood that ha d been partially cleaned up in the front entryway inside the home. An adult witness who had been st aying in the home said he saw five men approach father and that one of them had a gun. He further stated it was6 “obvious” that father knew th e men. The men and father wa lked toward the garage, and the witness later heard father screaming an d the sound of a gunshot from inside the

garage. At the July 25, 2012 adjudication hear ing, the juvenile court admitted into evidence, at father’s request, a letter from the Community He alth Care Clinic indicating father had been attending out patient narcotics prevention tr eatment since June 12, 2012,
and had submitted to 11 ra ndom drug tests. The court ad mitted a similar letter regarding
mother. Father testified he had been drug testing twice a we ek and that all of his tests results were negative. He said he had never seen mother use drugs. Father claimed the
men who came to his home and shot him were fri ends of the paternal aunt and he did not
know them. He admitt ed that he had previously been found in contempt of court for violating a criminal restraining order following an alterca tion with mother. The juvenile court sustained an amende d petition, finding that both father and
mother had unresolved histories of substance a buse that endangered th e children’s safety.
The court further found that father was not a credible witness and that both parents had been uncooperative and evasive w ith regard to drug testing. The juvenile court ordered
the children removed from thei r parents’ custody and or dered family reunification services for father and mother, including a drug rehabilitati on program with random and on demand weekly testing through the Departme nt. The court stated that the parents could drug test through their treatment program if the progr am’s testing protocol was acceptable to the Department. Detention and section 300 pe tition on behalf of Ki. On October 2, 2012, the Department rece ived a referral on behalf of Ki., who was born in early September 2012. That same day, the Department’s social worker responded to the family home and sp oke to father and mother, who were upset and initially uncooperative. The parents info rmed the social work er they were renting two of the three
bedrooms in the home. When the social worker asked whether the tenants had undergone criminal background checks, fa ther objected and said it was not necessary for the tenants to be “criminally cleared.” Father refused to disclose the tenants’ names but told the7 social worker “they are moving out any way.” The social worker re turned to the home on October 5, 2012, and was met by a woman wh o claimed to be house-sitting for the parents, who were not at home. On October 8, 2012, the so cial worker spoke with the paternal grandfather and his wife, with whom the four older children were placed. They reported the parents had traveled to northern California for a two-day visit with the children, but father had not visited with the children at all on the first day because he slept most of the day. On the second day, father left the vis it twice and was absent for three and a half hours. Father reportedly showed no joy or a ffection toward any of the ch ildren throughout the two-day
visit. On October 12, 2012, the so cial worker asked father and mother to submit to a drug test, but neither parent appeared for te sting. On October 13, 2012, the Department, assisted by the Claremont Police Department, detained Ki. from the parents. While Ki. was being detained, a police officer identified an adult male in the family home who was on parole for drug possession. Father drov e by the home during Ki.’s detention, and continued driving past the home when he sa w law enforcement officers were present. On October 17, 2012, the Departme nt filed a petition under section 300 subdivisions (b) and (j) on behalf of Ki., alleging that the child was at risk because of the parents’ unresolved substance abuse problems. At the detention hearing, the juvenile court found a prima facie case for detaining Ki. from the parents’ cu stody and ordered her
detained with a maternal aunt. The court accorded both parents monitored visits and ordered them to participate in random and on dema nd drug testing. Jurisdiction hearing on behalf of Ki. and progress hearing for siblings At the time of the Department’s Decembe r 4, 2012 jurisdiction/disposition report, Ki. remained placed with a maternal aunt. Bo th parents were enroll ed in an outpatient drug treatment program and drug tested regular ly through the program. All of their test results had been negative. Father and moth er had also completed a parenting education course and were participating in individu al, group, and substance abuse counseling.8 The Department reported as of October 17, 2012, it had directed the parents to submit to random drug testing through Pacifi c Toxicology, in additi on to testing through their drug treatment program. Mother tested negative on October 19 and November 2, 2012, but failed to appear for testing on October 22, 2012. Father failed to appear for testing on October 2, 15, and November 1, 2012. The parents had regular contact with th e four older children by telephone or by Skype, although most of the contacts were initiated by the children’s caregivers. Mother
had traveled to northern California twice to vi sit the children, and fa ther went once. The paternal grandfather also brought the childre n to visit the parents and other Los Angeles
based relatives on two occasions.
The older children were thri ving in the paternal grandfather’s home and expressed the desire to be with their parents “only if” the parents had changed. The children admitted they were often frightened while living with their parents. At a December 4, 2012 hearing, the juve nile court addressed the possibility of liberalizing the parents’ visits with Kai, Kalani, Kal., and Ka. The children’s counsel asked that liberalizing the visits be deferre d until after the parents had submitted to more testing with Pacific Toxicology. The juvenile court declined to liberalize father’s visits, but accorded the Department con tinuing discretion to do so in the future. The court also made clear that both parents were required to test at Pa cific Toxicology on a weekly basis: “I want both parents testing for Paci fic Toxicology. Let me make myself very, very clear: Pacific Toxicology on a weekly basis. Unless you have a legitimate reason why you missed, you need to be testing for me.” The juvenile court then proceeded to adjudicate th e section 300 petition filed on behalf of Ki. After admitting into evidence various reports prepared by the Department and hearing argument from the pa rties, the court sustained th e allegations under section 300, subdivision (j) that both pa rents had unresolved histories of substance abuse and that Ki.’s older siblings were current dependents of the juvenile court because of the parents’
substance abuse. The court dismissed the al legations under subdivision (b). The court continued the dispositional hearing for Ki. to the same date as the six-month review9 hearing for the four older sib lings and ordered the Department to prepare a supplemental report addressing the results of the parents’ drug tests. Six-month review as to siblings and disposition as to Ki. In mid-January 2013, father and mo ther completed a six-month narcotic prevention and substance abuse program. Mother had submitte d to a drug test at the Department’s direction on December 17, 2012 , but had failed to ap pear for testing on December 11 and 28, 2012, and Ja nuary 9, 2013. Father faile d to appear fo r any random drug test directed by the Department.
The four older children continued to liv e with their paternal grandfather in northern California and were thriving physica lly, emotionally, and socially. Ke. and Ka. were acting out sexually, however, and the paternal grandfather was arranging for counseling. The parents had a four-hour vis it with the older child ren on December 21, 2012, which went well. They had visited w ith Ki. three times during the previous eight
weeks. The juvenile court held a contested dis positional hearing as to Ki. and a six-month review hearing for Kai, Ka., Ke ., and Kal. on January 24, 2012 . At the hearing, father requested unmonitored visits with the older children. The childre n’s attorney opposed liberalizing the visits, noting that the parent s had failed to drug test regularly through Pacific Toxicology. Father argued he had te sted on December 6 and 14, 2012, and that he had appeared for testing two other times but testing had not occurred because the monitor had acted inappropriately toward hi m. The juvenile court ordered continued family reunification services fo r both parents but declined to liberalize their visits. The
court noted that father and mother had been present at the December 4, 2012 hearing at which time they had been instructed to test weekly at Pacific Toxicology, which both had
failed to do. The juvenile court then proceeded to the contested disposition hearing for Ki., declared her a dependent of the court and orde red her removed from the parents’ custody. Both parents were accorded family reunifica tion services, including weekly drug testing and aftercare, and monitored visits with Ki.10 This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
I. Standard of review We review the juvenile’s court’s jurisd ictional and dispositional findings under the substantial evidence standard. ( In re David M. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 822, 829; Angela S. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 762.) Under this standard, we review
the record to determine whethe r there is any reasonable, cred ible, and solid evidence to support the juvenile court’s conclusions, reso lve all conflicts in th e evidence, and make
all reasonable inferences from the evidence in support of the court’s orders. ( In re
Savannah M. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1393.) We review the order setting visitati on terms for abuse of discretion. ( In re
Michael B. (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1698, 1704.) An abuse of discretion does not occur unless the juvenile court has exceeded the limits of lega l discretion by making an arbitrary, capricious or paten tly absurd determination. ( In re Tamneisha S. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 798, 806.) II. Jurisdictional findings Section 300, subdivision (j) accords the juvenile court jurisdiction over a child when “[t]he child’s sibling has been abused or neglected, as defined in subdivision (a), (b), (d), (e), or (i), and there is a substantial ri sk that the child will be abused or neglected, as defined in those subdivisions.” (§ 300, subd. (j).) Father argues that the juvenile cour t’s assumption of jurisdiction over Ki. was improper because there was no sustained allega tion under sec tion 300, subdivisions (a), (b), (d), (e), or (i) after the juvenile cour t dismissed the subdivision (b) counts in the petition filed on behalf of Ki. Father’s argument is premised on an incorrect interpretation of the statute. Section 300, subdivision (j) requires, as a predicate, a
sustained count under subd ivisions (a), (b), (d), (e), or (i) pe rtaining to the child’s sibling, not to the subject child. That statutory predic ate was met in the inst ant case. At the time of the December 4, 2012 jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court had already found that11 father’s and mother’s substance abuse placed Ki.’s older siblings at risk of harm under section 300, subdivision (b). The second predicate for jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (j) -- a
substantial risk that the child will be abused or neglected -- was also met. The statute “‘does not require that the child actually be ab used or neglected befo re the juvenile court can assume jurisdiction .’ [Citation.] Instead, there need only be a ‘“substantial risk”’ of abuse or neglect. [Citation.]” ( In re T.V. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 126, 134.) There is substantial evidence that the parent’s unresol ved histories of substance abuse put Ki. at substantial risk of harm. Both parents repeat edly failed to appear for random drug testing directed by the Department. Father failed to appear for drug testi ng on October 2 and 15, 2012, November 1, 26 and 28, 2012, December 6, 14, 17, 20 and 28, 2012, and January 4, 2013. Mother failed to a ppear for testing on October 10 and 22, 2012, November 15 and 26, 2012, December 7, 11, and 28, 2012, and January 9, 2013. The parents’ lifestyle was also a ba sis for concern. Family members had expressed concern for Ki.’s siblings because father and mother allowed other people into
the home and then left the children unattended. Mother and father continued this pattern after Ki. was born. The parents admitted they were renting two of the three bedrooms in their home to different people. None of th e tenants had undergone criminal background checks. At the time Ki. was detained, a Cl aremont police officer found in the family
home an adult male who was on parole for drug possession. Substantial evidence supports the j uvenile court’s jurisdictional findings. III. Dispositional order Section 361, subdivision (c)(1) provides that the juvenile court may remove a child from the physical custody of his or he r parent when the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that there is a substantial dange r to the physical health, safety, protection or emotional well being of the child and there are no reasonable means to protect the child without removal fro m the parent’s physical custody. The parents’ disregard of the juvenile court’s order to submit to random drug testing as directed by the Department suppo rts the dispositional findings and order. At12 the December 4, 2012 jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court made “very, very clear” to father and mother that they were to drug test through Pa cific Toxicology on a weekly basis, yet both parents failed to do so. Fa ther failed to appear for drug testing on December 6, 14, 17, 20, and 28, 2012, and on Ja nuary 4, 2013. Moth er failed to appear for scheduled testing on December 11, and 28, 2012, and on Janu ary 9, 2013. The parent’s drug abuse is substantial eviden ce which supports the juvenile court’s dispositional findings and order. IV. Visitation with siblings Father’s challenge to the juvenile court’s rejection of his request to liberalize visits with Kai, Ka., Ke., and Kal. at the six-mont h review hearing held on January 24, 2012, was rendered moot by his subsequent stipulati on, through counsel, to a “stay away order” prohibiting him from going to th e paternal grandparents’ home, the children’s school, and the grandparents’ place of employment, but allowing him monitore d visitation. We
therefore need not addre ss the visitation issue.
DISPOSITION The juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

.

_______ ____________________, J. CHAVEZ

We concur:

________________ ____________, Acting P. J. ASHMANN-GERST

___________________ _________, J.* FERNS

___________________ __________________ __________________ _________________ * Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chie f Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.