Filed 9/24/20 In re R.T. CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(a). This opinion has 

not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a). 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re R.T. et al., Persons Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

B302738

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

T.V.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. Nos.

18CCJP04314D–F

APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, D. Brett Bianco, Judge. Affirmed. 

Paul A. Swiller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Appellant.

Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, 

Assistant County Counsel, Stephanie Jo Reagan, Deputy County 

Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

INTRODUCTION

Mother Tatiana V. (mother) challenges the juvenile court’s 

exercise of dependency jurisdiction over her three children. The

Department of Children and Family Services (Department)

received a referral from an aide at one of the children’s school 

stating that the child, who is severely autistic, had injuries to her 

head and hand. Subsequent investigation revealed that mother 

had been using methamphetamine during the time period when 

the child sustained those injuries. The court found jurisdiction 

over the children under Welfare and Institutions Code section 

300, subdivision (b).1 Finding no error, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDRUAL BACKGROUND

1. The Family and Prior Child Welfare Proceedings

Mother and father2 have three children together, R.T. (born 

in 2004), M.T. (born in 2006), and Mariah (born in 2008.) The 

parents were married in 2005 and divorced in 2014. They 

currently live in separate residences.

All three children have been diagnosed with autism. 

Mariah is nonverbal and severely autistic. Mariah bites mother, 

hits herself and others, and has been exhibiting increasingly 

aggressive behaviors. M.T. and Mariah receive in-home services 

after school, every weekday, for three to four hours.

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code.

2 Father is not involved in the appeal.
3

The family has had several interactions with the 

Department. From late 2010 to early 2012, the family 

participated in voluntary family maintenance services after the 

Department found a general neglect referral to be substantiated. 

The referring party alleged the parents were involved in an 

altercation in the home while the children were present. In 2011, 

the Department received two additional referrals. One related to 

Mariah, who was then three years old, after she unlocked the 

door and left the house without adult supervision. The other 

referral related to all three children and alleged two of the 

children had significant diaper rashes that had not been 

corrected, all three children wandered outside unsupervised, the 

family home did not have any home safety devices, and the home 

had an unsecured pool in the backyard. The Department 

concluded that both general neglect referrals were substantiated.

In July 2018, the Department filed a petition on behalf of 

the three children alleging a history of domestic violence with 

father as the aggressor. Although the parents had participated in 

voluntary family maintenance services, domestic violence 

continued to take place and the court found jurisdiction over the 

children under section 300, subdivision (c). The court terminated 

jurisdiction in February 2019 and issued exits orders giving the 

parents joint legal and physical custody of the children with 

primary residence with mother.

2. The Current Child Welfare Proceeding

The Department most recently became involved with this 

family in September 2019. On September 4, 2019, an aide at 

Mariah’s school observed that Mariah had a black eye as well as 

scratches on three fingers and knuckles on one hand. The aide 
4

did not believe mother’s explanation for the injuries and 

contacted the Department.

During an unannounced home visit on September 5, 2019, 

a Department social worker interviewed mother, the children, 

and two behavioral therapists who were working with the 

children. Mother explained that on September 2, 2019, while 

mother was still in bed, Mariah put a blanket over her head and 

then hit her head (specifically, her left eyebrow area) on a wooden 

bed frame. Mother did not seek medical attention for Mariah. 

Later that day, the family was at the maternal grandmother’s 

house. Mariah got her pinky finger stuck in a metal chair and 

mother was unable to free the finger. Members of the Los Angeles 

Fire Department were summoned to the home and they cut the 

chair in order to free Mariah’s finger, scratching her fingers and 

knuckles in the process.

During the initial interview, mother denied currently using 

any drugs but reported that when she was a teenager, she used 

“PCP, Weed, Coke, Ecstasy, [and] LSD.” She also reported that in 

2012 she was hospitalized after she went to a party, “drank wine 

and did ‘Meth’ ” and had “ ‘a bad reaction.’ ” Mother agreed to 

take a drug test the following day, on September 6, 2019, but did 

not appear at the testing site, purportedly because her car would 

not start. Mother tested positive for amphetamine and 

methamphetamine on September 9, 2019. The social worker 

spoke with mother about the test results on September 17, 2019. 

Mother denied using methamphetamine and indicated the 

positive result must have been caused by Benadryl and Prozac. 

On September 18, 2019, mother agreed to submit to 

another drug test but later called the social worker to explain 

that the test would be positive for methamphetamine. Mother 
5

admitted that she smoked the drug three days prior and had used 

methamphetamine, purportedly for weight loss purposes, four to 

six times in the preceding month. Mother stated she did not use 

drugs at home and left the children in father’s care when she 

used drugs. And although mother denied that her drug use 

hindered her ability to take care of the children, they were absent 

from school on September 19 and 20, because mother was 

reportedly “ill.” She later said she thought she had a stomach flu 

or food poisoning and denied that drug use resulted in the 

children missing school.

On October 1, 2019, the Department detained the children 

from mother and placed them in father’s home. A few days later, 

at the detention hearing, the court returned the children to 

mother’s home over the Department’s objection. The court 

concluded that placement with mother was in the children’s best 

interest because father worked and did not have adequate 

childcare for them and the children would have difficulty 

adjusting to a foster care setting. The court required mother to 

drug test weekly, enroll in a drug treatment program, and ensure 

that the children attended school regularly.

Mother consistently tested for drugs and alcohol and her 

tests in October and early November were negative for all 

substances. Mother denied that she needed substance abuse 

classes, however. She also resisted enrolling in a drug treatment 

program, saying she was confident she could stop using drugs on 

her own.
6

The adjudication and disposition hearings took place on 

November 14, 2019. Mother testified at the adjudication hearing.

On the basis of the Department’s reports as well as mother’s 

testimony, the court sustained the following amended allegation 

under section 300, subdivision (b): 

“The [children’s] mother ... has a history of substance 

abuse including PCP, Cocaine, LSD, amphetamine, 

methamphetamine, ecstasy, marijuana and prescription 

medication and is a recent user of amphetamine [and]

methamphetamine which renders the mother incapable of 

providing the children with regular care and supervision. On 

09/09/2019 the mother had a positive toxicology screen for 

amphetamine and methamphetamine. On 09/09/2019 the mother 

was under the influence of amphetamine and methamphetamine 

while the children were in the mother’s care and supervision. The 

mother’s substance abuse endangers the children’s physical 

health and safety, placing the children at risk of suffering serious 

physical harm, damage, danger and failure to protect.”

As to disposition, the court concluded the children should 

remain in mother’s home. Mother’s case plan requires weekly 

drug testing and individual counseling to address case issues.

Mother timely appeals.

DISCUSSION

Mother contends the court’s jurisdiction findings are not 

supported by substantial evidence. We disagree.

1. Standard of Review

We review dependency jurisdiction findings for substantial 

evidence. (In re D.C. (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 41, 55.) In doing so, 

we view the record in the light most favorable to the juvenile 
7

court’s determinations, drawing all reasonable inferences from 

the evidence to support the court’s findings and orders. Issues of 

fact and credibility are the province of the court and we neither 

reweigh the evidence nor exercise our independent judgment. 

(In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773 (I.J.).) But substantial 

evidence “is not synonymous with any evidence. [Citations.] A 

decision supported by a mere scintilla of evidence need not be 

affirmed on appeal. [Citation.] ... ‘The ultimate test is whether it 

is reasonable for a trier of fact to make the ruling in question in 

light of the whole record.’ [Citation.]” (In re Savannah M. (2005) 

131 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1393–1394, italics omitted; In re 

Yolanda L. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 987, 992.) 

2. The court’s jurisdiction findings are supported by 

substantial evidence.

To establish jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b),3

on substance abuse grounds, the Department must prove: 

(1) “substance abuse by a parent ... , (2) causation, and (3) serious 

physical harm to the child, or a substantial risk of such harm.” 

(In re Rebecca C. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 720, 724–725

(Rebecca C.).) “The Department has the burden of proving by a 

3 The statute provides in relevant part: “A child who comes within any 

of the following descriptions is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile 

court which may adjudge that person to be a dependent child of the 

court: ... [¶] The 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 ... to adequately supervise or 

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

regular care for the child due to the parent’s ... substance abuse.” 

(§ 300, subd. (b)(1).)
8

preponderance of the evidence that the children are dependents 

of the court under section 300. [Citations.]” (I.J., supra, 56 

Cal.4th at p. 773.)

Mother contends the Department failed to establish any of 

these three requirements. We address them in turn. 

2.1. Substance Abuse

As a general matter, the legislature has declared, “The 

provision of a home environment free from the negative effects of 

substance abuse is a necessary condition for the safety, protection 

and physical and emotional well-being of the child.” (§ 300.2.) 

And our courts have repeatedly held that a juvenile court “need 

not wait until a child is seriously abused or injured to assume 

jurisdiction and take the steps necessary to protect the child.” 

(In re R.V. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 837, 843.)

Mother maintains that her recent use of methamphetamine 

does not qualify as substance abuse. Specifically, she cites In re 

Natalie A. (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 178, and argues that she is not 

a “substance abuser” as we have defined that term. In Natalie A., 

we referenced our prior opinion in In re Drake M. (2012) 211 

Cal.App.4th 754 (Drake M.), in which we quoted the “ ‘full 

definition of “substance abuse” found in the [American 

Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of 

Mental Disorders (4th rev. ed. 2000) (DSM-IV-TR)][,] [which] 

describes the condition as “[a] maladaptive pattern of substance 

use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress, as 

manifested by one[4](or more) of the following, occurring within a 

4 Mother argues incorrectly that the Department was required to 

establish all four of the indicators specified. 
9

12-month period: [¶] (1) recurrent substance use resulting in a 

failure to fulfill major role obligations at work, school, or home 

(e.g., repeated absences or poor work performance related to 

substance use; substance-related absences, suspensions, or 

expulsions from school; neglect of children or household)[; ¶] 

(2) recurrent substance use in situations in which it is physically 

hazardous (e.g., driving an automobile or operating a machine 

when impaired by substance use)[; ¶] (3) recurrent substancerelated legal problems (e.g., arrests for substance-related 

disorderly conduct)[; and ¶] (4) continued substance use despite 

having persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems 

caused or exacerbated by the effects of the substance (e.g., 

arguments with spouse about consequences of intoxication, 

physical fights).” ’ ” (Natalie A., at p. 185.)

In arguing that she does not meet the definition of a 

substance abuser, however, mother presents the evidence in the 

light most favorable to her, thereby ignoring the applicable 

standard of review which requires that we view the evidence in 

the light most favorable to the court’s decision. (See, e.g., I.J., 

supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 773 [“ ‘ “[W]e 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” ’ ”].)

For example, mother asserts that her drug use was “shortterm,” and had permanently ceased by the time the Department 

filed the petition. To support this claim, mother highlights that 

she tested negative for drugs during the month between the 

detention hearing and the adjudication, she never used drugs at 

home or in the presence of the children, and she made 
10

appropriate arrangements for the children’s care while using 

drugs. Further, mother correctly notes that her family members 

as well as the professionals who provided in-home services to 

M.T. and Mariah universally praised her as a caring, patient, 

loving mother. The court undoubtedly took these facts into 

consideration at the detention hearing, when the court returned 

the children to mother’s home, and at disposition, when the court 

continued that placement. But to the extent the court determined 

these facts, which are indeed favorable to mother, were 

outweighed by other factors, we will not substitute our judgment

for the court’s.

Mother’s primary claim is that her use of 

methamphetamine in September 2019 was an isolated occurrence 

designed to help her lose weight and fit into a “cute dress” in time 

to celebrate her birthday in late September. The Department 

doubted mother’s explanation, however, and was concerned that 

mother was using drugs in order to cope with the stress of caring 

for three high-need children with autism on her own. To the 

extent the court discredited mother’s explanation for her recent 

drug use and gave greater weight to mother’s long-standing 

(though apparently infrequent) use of drugs, it was free to do so.

In any event, when the evidence is viewed in the light most 

favorable to the judgment, mother meets at least one of the 

criteria we referenced in Drake M. During the period mother has 

admitted to using methamphetamine, Mariah suffered two 

physical injuries and all the children were absent from school for 

two days due to her reported “illness.” In addition, mother 

continued to use drugs even after the Department intervened in 

the case—and even after a drug test came back positive for 

methamphetamine. Given that mother had worked with the 
11

Department on several occasions, it is reasonable to assume that 

she was aware her children could be removed from her custody—

yet she continued to use drugs and continued to deny that fact.

2.2. Causation

As already noted, under section 300, subdivision (b), state 

intervention is not warranted unless a parent has neglected his 

or her child due to one of the enumerated factors, such as drug 

use, or there is a substantial risk of harm in the future. 

Accordingly, we have held that a parent’s use of marijuana or 

other drugs, standing alone, does not generally provide a 

sufficient basis for dependency jurisdiction. (See, e.g., In re L.W.

(2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 840, 850 [risk of harm is not presumed 

when evidence demonstrates parental drug use]; Rebecca C., 

supra, 228 Cal.App.4th at p. 728 [substance abuse without more 

is insufficient to support jurisdiction]; Drake M., supra, 211 

Cal.App.4th at p. 769 [drug use without evidence that use has 

caused or will cause physical harm insufficient to support 

jurisdiction].)

Mother argues—again stating the evidence in the light 

most favorable to her—that the evidence does not establish a 

connection between her use of methamphetamine and any harm 

or risk of harm to the children. We disagree. 

On this point, the court was concerned about two main 

aspects of the case: Mariah’s injuries and the children’s absences 

from school. During the time mother was admittedly using 

methamphetamine, Mariah suffered two different injuries. The 

court was likely concerned that mother, while impaired, was not 

able to render the attention and care required by her three highneed children—especially Mariah, who had a history of selfharming and aggressive behaviors. Further, the fact that during 
12

the same period of time the children missed school due to 

mother’s purported illness—and were presumably at home and in 

her custody—provides further evidence of a connection between 

her drug use and a risk of harm to the children. 

2.3. Risk of Harm

Mother strenuously argues that the children have not 

suffered, nor are they at substantial risk of suffering, serious 

physical harm. Risk to a child from substance abuse can be 

established in two ways: (1) through proof of “ ‘an identified, 

specific hazard in the child’s environment,’ ” or (2) through proof 

that the child is of “ ‘tender years’ ”—i.e., six years old or 

younger—in which case a “finding of substance abuse is prima 

facie evidence of the inability of a parent or guardian to provide 

regular care resulting in a substantial risk of physical harm.” 

(Drake M., supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at pp. 766–767, italics 

removed; In re Christopher R. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1219

[defining “tender years” as six years old or younger].) The 

children are older than six years. But the court was justifiably 

concerned that all three of these children have been diagnosed 

with autism and, at least in Mariah’s case, exhibit behaviors that 

heighten the need for constant and close supervision and increase 

the risk of harm in the event their care is inadequate.

To show that a child faces a risk of harm at the time of the 

jurisdiction hearing, there “ ‘must be some reason beyond mere 

speculation to believe the alleged conduct will recur. [Citation.]’ 

[Citation.]” (In re D.L. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1142, 1146.) In 

determining whether conduct is likely to recur, courts may 

consider evidence of the parent’s behavior in the past. (In re N.M.

(2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 159, 165.) Here, mother used a variety of 

drugs in her teenage years, was hospitalized in 2012 as a result 
13

of drug and alcohol abuse, and recently resumed using 

methamphetamine. As already discussed, the Department found 

mother’s explanation for her recent drug use—a desire to lose 

weight—to be implausible. And both the court and the 

Department expressed concern that mother had an unresolved 

substance abuse issue that could continue to plague her if left 

untreated. These facts support the court’s conclusion that the risk 

of serious physical harm was ongoing.

Additionally, a parent’s denial of wrongdoing or failure to 

recognize the negative impact of her conduct is relevant to 

determining risk under section 300. (See In re Tania S. (1992) 5 

Cal.App.4th 728, 735, fn. 4; see also In re A.F. (2016) 3 

Cal.App.5th 283, 293 [“ ‘[D]enial is a factor often relevant to 

determining whether persons are likely to modify their behavior 

in the future without court supervision’ ”].) The record in the 

present case indicates that mother initially denied using drugs. 

Even after her first drug test came back positive for 

amphetamine and methamphetamine, she claimed that her 

positive test results must have been due to her use of Prozac 

and/or Benadryl. And although mother eventually admitted she 

had been using methamphetamine, she refused to enroll in a 

drug treatment program, stating that she would be able to stop 

on her own. Mother also denied that her drug use impaired her 

parenting in any way, notwithstanding that the Department 

became involved after Mariah suffered two injuries. (See A.F., at 

p. 293 [a parent’s denial of responsibility is relevant in 

determining whether the parent’s conduct is likely to recur in the 

future].)

Our conclusion does not diminish mother’s admirable 

efforts in this case. We simply conclude that the court’s exercise 
14

of dependency jurisdiction in the first instance was not erroneous. 

Assuming mother’s progress continues, we are confident that the 

dependency court will consider that fact in future proceedings. 

DISPOSITION

The adjudication orders are affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

LAVIN, J.

WE CONCUR:

EDMON, P. J.

EGERTON, J.