Filed 7/15/15 In re Isabella R. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 ISABELLA R. et al., Persons Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 B259257

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. DK01626)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND 

FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MARY M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Timothy 

R. Saito, Judge. Affirmed.

Valerie N. Lankford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant. 

Mark J. Saladino, County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, 

Sarah Vesecky, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________
2

SUMMARY

Mary M. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional order under 

Welfare and Institutions Code1section 300, declaring her two children, Isabella R. and 

Allison R., to be at substantial risk of harm as a result of her efforts to conceal Isabella 

from the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) and her 

mental health history. Mother also appeals from the court’s order removing the children 

from her custody under section 361. We affirm.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURE

On October 4, 2013, DCFS filed a section 300 petition on behalf of Isabella (born 

in August 2012) alleging in two counts that Mother placed Isabella at risk. In count b-1,

DCFS alleged Mother had “mental and emotional problems including a diagnosis for 

Major Depression, severe, suicidal ideation, suicide attempts and self mutilation 

behaviors. On multiple prior occasions mother was hospitalized for the evaluation and 

treatment of the mother’s psychiatric condition. The mother failed to take the mother’s 

psychotropic medication as prescribed.” In count b-2, DCFS alleged that Mother placed 

Isabella in “an endangering and detrimental situation in that on or about 8/13/13, the 

mother left her home with the child to intentionally conceal the child from DCFS for over 

six weeks. The mother and child’s current whereabouts is [sic] unknown.” The petition 

listed Cesar R. (Cesar) as Isabella’s alleged father and indicated that his whereabouts 

were also unknown.

Also on October 4, 2013, DCFS filed a Detention Report explaining Mother’s 

DCFS history as a minor. In January 2010, Mother’s school contacted DCFS because of 

a lack of supervision for Mother (who was 14 years old at the time) by Mother’s mother 

(maternal grandmother or MGM) and noted Mother’s earlier suicide attempt and 

resulting in hospitalization in November 2009. Attached to the Detention Report was a 

hospital admission report showing that Mother had two previous psychiatric 

 

1

Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise 

indicated.
3

hospitalizations at the same hospital and was currently being hospitalized again in June 

2010 after recently running away, having suicidal thoughts with plans to use a razor to 

cut herself or to overdose on drugs, as well as threatening her sister with a knife. A 

report from a different hospital showed Mother was involuntarily hospitalized in July 

2010 for “depression and drugs,” after prematurely leaving court-ordered drug 

rehabilitation and reportedly stabbing herself with a pencil and overdosing on pills.2

Mother reported “hearing whispers” and not sleeping for two weeks. 

In October 2012, while Mother’s own DCFS case was still open, then-17-year-old 

Mother ran away from MGM’s home with Isabella, who was two months old at the time. 

Cesar claimed that he and MGM had tried unsuccessfully to locate Mother with friends 

and family, but declined to provide DCFS with his address and claimed not to have a 

phone number. About a month after Mother ran away, a social worker asked MGM 

about Mother and was told that Mother had contacted MGM a few times to inform her 

that Mother and Isabella were okay. Mother would not disclose to MGM her 

whereabouts and refused to contact her social worker. Rather, Mother told MGM that 

“she was not going to allow anyone to find her and the baby until she turns 18, when she 

would be able to prove to everyone that she has been capable of caring for her baby.”3

Mother and Isabella’s whereabouts remained unknown to DCFS4and, in August 

2013 when Mother turned 18 years old, DCFS generated a referral for Isabella due to the 

termination of jurisdiction for Mother and concerns about possible neglect of Isabella due 

to Mother’s uncertain mental health status. 

At an October 4, 2013 hearing, the juvenile court ordered Isabella detained, 

issuing a protective custody warrant for Isabella and an arrest warrant for Mother to 

 

2 Mother denied overdosing, stating that she sniffed pills and swallowed glue. 

3

Soon after MGM informed DCFS of her contact with Mother, MGM’s telephone 

number was disconnected and MGM’s whereabouts also became unknown. 

4 Cesar’s whereabouts were also unknown. 
4

become effective if Mother was not found by October 18, 2013. On October 18, 2013, 

Mother had not been located and the juvenile court issued the arrest warrant. 

On May 7, 2014, the juvenile court placed the matter on calendar after “the court 

was informed that the mother was released from incarceration on bail in regard to the 

warrant issued out of this court.” The court found Cesar to be Isabella’s presumed father, 

but found that “it is detrimental to return the child to the custody of the father and that it 

is not in the child’s best interest at this time.” The court, however, granted DCFS 

discretion to release the child to Cesar “if appropriate” and to detain Isabella in the home 

of any appropriate relative or non-related extended family member. The court ordered 

monitored visits for both Mother and Cesar. 

On May 13, 2014, DCFS filed a new original section 300 petition on behalf of 

Allison R. (born September 2013) against Mother and Jonathan R., Allison’s alleged 

father. This petition made substantially the same allegations as the prior petition on 

Isabella’s behalf in counts b-1 and b-2, but added in count b-1 the allegation that 

Jonathan “knew of mother’s mental health issues and failed to protect the child in that 

[Jonathan] allowed the child to be in mother’s care and supervision” and added a count j1 based on Mother’s leaving home with and concealing Isabella.5

 

Also on May 13, 2014, DCFS filed a detention report with respect to Allison. 

Mother told DCFS she had not taken her medication nor received mental health services 

in over two years, stopping in 2012 when she was pregnant with Isabella. According to 

Mother, “the court ordered her” to stop due to her pregnancy. Mother did not resume her 

medication or seek psychiatric services because “she feels she is doing well without 

them.” Mother admitted consuming alcohol but denied using cocaine more than once. 

Mother claimed not to have used drugs in three years. 

When Isabella was detained on May 7, 2014, a DCFS social worker noticed 

superficial cuts on her abdomen, right leg and left palm. Mother told DCFS that 

 

5

In terms of count b-2 and j-1, the petition on Allison’s behalf alleged that she 

was at risk of harm based on Mother placing Isabella in an endangering and detrimental 

situation when Mother concealed Isabella on or about August 13, 2013. 
5

Isabella’s crib had a loose screw on a drawer and Isabella constantly cut herself trying to 

climb over the crib and pointed out a screw with tape around it. MGM explained that 

Isabella cut herself because she liked to play shirtless outside by the rose bushes.

Jonathan admitted he was aware of Mother’s mental health and substance abuse, 

including that Mother “ha[d] not been taking her medications [and] had an open case.” 

Jonathan shared with DCFS that he “had concerns of his own about [Allison] being under 

mother’s care,” but that he still leaves Allison with Mother because he has to go to work. 

On May 13, 2014, the juvenile court found Jonathan to be the presumed father of 

Allison, detained Allison from Mother and Jonathan, and ordered monitored visits for 

both. The court ordered DCFS to investigate the possibility of releasing Isabella and 

Allison to their respective fathers. 

A Pre-Release Investigation filed on May 27, 2014, reported an interview with 

Jonathan. Jonathan also had a son who resided with his mother. Jonathan met Mother on 

October 31 of 2011.6 He was “with” Mother for “6 to 7 months” before the relationship 

ended in December 20137 when Mother resumed a relationship with Cesar. When 

Allison was born, Mother reported the father to be Cesar but when Allison was two 

months old Jonathan had a DNA test done and it showed Jonathan to be Allison’s father. 

Jonathan does not have a current relationship with Mother. Jonathan wanted Allison to 

reside with him in his care and custody. DCFS noted some safety hazards in Jonathan’s 

home that needed to be remedied. 

On June 10, 2014, DCFS filed a Last Minute Information for the Court reporting 

that Mother stated that during her pregnancy, an ultrasound showed that Allison’s left 

kidney was “not working” but Allison had “never been seen” by a doctor for her “kidney 

issues” as recommended by her physician at her birth. Mother missed the appointment 

 

6

Jonathan was unsure if the year was 2011 or 2012. 

7

Jonathan may have been mistaken about the year his relationship with Mother 

ended as Allison was born in September 2013, three months before the date he gave as 

the relationship’s end, but Jonathan stated he was not at Allison’s birth because he was 

unaware that Mother was pregnant. 
6

with the urologist but noted that “It’s fine because her right one works.” Mother told 

Jonathan of the kidney issues and he was “supposed” to help address Allison’s medical 

needs. 

Jonathan stated that Mother told him about Allison’s kidney and that Allison was 

supposed to be on pills. Allison, however, had never taken the pills. Jonathan knew 

about the missed appointment with the urologist, replying that he and Mother disagreed 

about who was supposed to take Allison. 

A Pre-Release Investigation filed on June 10, 2014, reported interviews with 

Mother and Cesar. Cesar and Mother were in a relationship but Mother had moved out in 

the hopes that Isabella would be placed in Cesar’s care and custody.8 Cesar lived with 

MGM, a friend, and MGM’s companion. Cesar said that Mother still frequented the 

home since Isabella was not currently placed there. If Isabella were released to Cesar, his 

plan was to have MGM care for Isabella when he worked. 

With respect to the allegation that Mother placed Isabella in an endangering or 

detrimental situation when she left MGM’s home on August 13, 2013, and concealed 

Isabella from DCFS, Mother explained she took Isabella with her to visit a friend, Juan, 

but he “held me hostage. He would beat me up and choke me. He wouldn’t let me leave, 

he wouldn’t let me out by myself or he kept threatening me that he was going to keep 

Isabella.” She did not remember how long she was with Juan, but at some point Juan’s 

mother gave her money to leave and Juan finally “let me out of his sight.” Mother found 

MGM and Cesar, contacting Cesar through Facebook, and moved in with MGM.

9

 MGM 

 

8 Mother reported living with a cousin, but did not provide the dependency 

investigator with the cousin’s information or home address. Mother planned to continue 

to use MGM’s address as her mailing address. 

9 While Mother lived at MGM’s home, Cesar was at the home “all the time, 

almost like he lived there too.” Mother and Cesar broke up and she started a relationship 

with Jonathan but ended it because, although Jonathan was good to Isabella, he did not 

treat her as his own child. Mother and Cesar reconciled and moved in with MGM. 

“Mother would not provide specific information as to the timeline of her initial 

disappearance with [Isabella], the timeframe with Juan [], when contact was made with 
7

scared Mother by telling her “they would take” Isabella and Mother found out about the 

warrant a couple months later. Mother and Cesar did not use Isabella’s identifying 

information (such as her medical card, social security number, and food stamps) to 

“prevent you . . . from finding us.” 

Cesar told the dependency investigator that Mother “ran away because she was 

scared” DCFS would take Isabella and that Mother made the decision one day before a 

court appearance. Cesar lost contact with Mother and could not locate her. He finally 

located her about two weeks later on Facebook and they met once. About a month later, 

Mother came to Cesar and they went to live together at his brother’s house for about two 

months. Father would not respond when the dependency investigator inquired as to 

father notifying DCFS, dependency court or law enforcement when mother and child 

were located. 

With respect to her mental health, Mother reported she last saw a therapist while 

in DCFS care at the age of 17. Mother was diagnosed with depression and bipolar 

disorder and was prescribed psychotropic medication, but stopped taking the medicine 

while pregnant with Isabella and had not resumed after her birth. Mother reported no 

current symptoms. Mother admitted consuming alcohol and aerosol from a spray can to 

“get attention.” She stated she was willing to comply with a full mental health 

assessment to determine her current mental health status and need for psychotropic 

medications. Cesar acknowledged being aware from Mother that she was diagnosed as 

bipolar and had been prescribed psychotropic medication which she discontinued after 

Isabella’s birth. Cesar was also aware that Mother had discontinued psychiatric treatment 

after Isabella’s birth. After Isabella’s birth, however, “everything changed” and Mother 

no longer had mood swings, anxiety or any problems. In terms of protecting Isabella in 

light of Mother’s mental health history, Cesar said he took care of Isabella, was scared 

Mother would run away with Isabella when she had no place to go, and believed Mother 

was committed to resolving her issues to regain custody. 

 

father Cesar [], timeline as to the parent’s relationship, and the timeline as to when they 

moved in together.” 
8

DCFS noted some safety hazards in Cesar’s home that needed to be remedied. 

DCFS also expressed concern about Cesar’s ability to protect Isabella given his and 

MGM’s failure to disclose Mother and Isabella’s whereabouts once they were located. 

DCFS filed three Last Minute Information for the Court forms on June 10, 2014. 

The first one reported that Mother was in Cesar’s home during all visits by the 

dependency investigator and DCFS was still unable to verify Mother’s current address. 

The second one reported that Jonathan had only had one visit since Allison’s placement

and that a background check for a family friend who was a potential caregiver was still 

incomplete. The third one reported on unresolved deficiencies in Jonathan’s housing. 

On June 10, 2014, the juvenile court ordered Allison released to Jonathan and 

Isabella to remain detained. 

On June 27, 2014, DCFS filed a Jurisdiction/Disposition Report for both Isabella 

and Allison. In addition to reiterating information in prior reports, DCFS interviewed 

Jonathan. When Jonathan met Mother, she was “stressed out.” Jonathan, however, 

denied any knowledge of Mother’s mental health issues, including diagnosis and 

medication recommendations, saying that he did not think Mother was a danger to 

Allison and just thought Mother was angry at MGM and some friends. Jonathan denied 

knowing about Mother abducting Isabella, saying that he found out about the incident 

through DCFS’s case. 

Mother provided a letter from the Los Angeles Department of Mental Health’s 

Women’s Community Reintegration Services and Education Center dated June 13, 2014, 

noting that Mother had been seen by a mental health professional but determined not to 

meet medical necessity at that time to receive services.10 DCFS noted, however, that the 

evaluating mental health professional did not have access to Mother’s DCFS history and 

reports. 

DCFS filed two Last Minute Information to the Court forms on June 27, 2014. 

The first one reported that Jonathan was having “extensive difficulty with securing day 

 

10 A copy of the letter is attached to the Jurisdiction/Disposition Report. 
9

care services” for Allison, causing him to miss work and consider terminating his 

employment. The second one reported that the dependency investigator had visited 

Mother’s home with her cousin, but was concerned that Mother may not be living at the 

address given her limited belongings in the apartment and the apartment manager’s 

inability to verify that Mother resided at the address. 

On June 27, 2010, the juvenile court ordered Isabella released to Cesar, over 

DCFS’s objections, and on the condition that Mother not reside in the home. 

On June 30, 2014, DCFS filed a First Amended Petition, against Mother and 

Cesar, adding count b-3 which alleged that Cesar concealed Isabella’s whereabouts after 

Mother left home on August 13, 2013, thereby endangering Isabella. 

At the June 30, 2014 jurisdiction hearing—which continued on July 1, 2 and 3, 

2014—the court dismissed the original petition as to Isabella and received the first 

amended petition. The court then admitted into evidence various DCFS reports and heard 

testimony from Mother and Cesar. 

Mother testified to the following: Her mental health problems began when she 

was 13 years old and going through a phase where she was out of control, thinking 

suicidal thoughts and emotionally depressed. She was diagnosed with bipolar disorder 

and depression, and her behavior included running away, not listening to others, and not 

showing emotions. She was on medication to control her symptoms and was 

hospitalized. She was transferred to “rehab,” and spent several months at two placements 

until her “graduation”—meaning “you’re not a danger to yourself as you were before.” 

Mother left placement and became pregnant with Isabella when she was 16 years old. 

Because the pregnancy was high-risk, she stopped taking psychotropic medication based 

on the recommendation of a doctor her social worker took her to see. After Isabella’s 

birth, a doctor who checked her said she did not need medication at the time so she did 

not resume taking it. On cross-examination, Mother conceded that the doctor asked for 

more information, specifically Mother’s past records, to follow up but Mother ran away 

before the follow up occurred. She has not experienced any mental or emotional issues 

since she left placement and gave birth to Isabella. Mother saw a different doctor two 
10

weeks ago and disclosed her previous diagnosis and told him to talk to her social worker 

if he wanted additional information. The doctor concluded Mother did not meet “his 

necessity to be evaluated as a mental health patient” and did not have any symptoms. 

In October 2012, Mother left and “ran away” from MGM’s home for a month with 

Isabella. Mother went to visit Juan “and was going to come back home that same day” 

but Juan would not let Mother out the door. Juan would hit Mother when Mother would 

try to leave with Isabella. Mother “would never hold Isabella when [Juan] would hit 

[her]”; instead Isabella would be in the living room with Juan’s mother while Juan hit her 

in another room. When Mother returned, MGM had been evicted and Mother could not 

find her, so Mother lived with Cesar until locating MGM at the end of November. In 

December 2012, Mother moved back in with MGM. Mother denied that she ever tried to 

hide from DCFS or that MGM ever tried to hide Mother’s location. When Mother 

returned, she tried contacting her social worker but “there was no answer, and they told 

me that it was a different social worker.” MGM had not had any contact from DCFS. 

Mother thought her case was “done” and was unaware that the court issued a warrant for 

her arrest. Although Mother stated in this case that she “thought about” not using 

Isabella’s identifying information to hide her, she never said that she actually did so. 

Mother would abide by the court order that she could not live with Cesar. 

Cesar testified to the following: Throughout 2013, Cesar lived with Mother, 

Isabella and MGM. Cesar never concealed Isabella’s whereabouts from DCFS and did

not know about the warrant for Mother’s arrest until her arrest in April 2014. He was 

aware of Mother’s mental health history and that she had a case with DCFS when she ran 

away. Cesar did not contact DCFS when he found Mother. Mother never told Cesar that 

she was planning on using different medical information so DCFS would not know where 

Isabella was. 

After argument, the juvenile court sustained counts b-1 and b-2 in both petitions 

with respect to Mother’s conduct, but struck the sentence alleging Jonathan failed to 

protect and dismissed count b-3 in the amended petition against Cesar for concealing 
11

Isabella.

11

 The court amended the petitions to reference Mother’s mental health problems 

as “unresolved” in both b-1 counts. The court explained that Mother’s testimony was 

“very helpful and insightful” in establishing a “nexus” between Mother’s mental and 

emotional health and risk of future harm to Isabella and Allison because her emotional 

issues manifest in running away, “awoling,” not wanting to communicate, and wanting to 

be alone—which is “just what she did in this case.” Specifically, Mother’s emotional 

issues resulted in Isabella being subjected to domestic violence between herself and Juan

that included Juan hitting, choking and threatening Mother as well as holding her and 

Isabella hostage. The juvenile court found that Mother had a pattern of wanting to be 

alone and “awoling” and “this time took the child with her and affected this child. And 

unless she gets the treatment that she needs, this could happen again.” The court found a 

“direct correlation” between Mother’s “untreated emotional issues” and the “care of the 

child.” The juvenile court also noted credibility issues with Mother’s testimony that a 

doctor told her she was fine. 

The court found that Mother intentionally left and was concealing Isabella, which 

was “very troubling,” and that in her effort to conceal Isabella, Mother did not use her 

medical card, food stamps or social security card—“all [of] which go[] to the care of the 

child in this case, which was derelict on the part of the Mother.” The court also noted 

Allison’s “untreated medical issues” which the court tied to concealing the child and 

putting the child at risk. 

The court continued the disposition hearing for receipt of a section 730 evaluation 

for Mother. 

On August 13, 2014, DCFS filed a Last Minute Information for the Court 

summarizing and attaching a 730 Psychological Evaluation report by Dr. Nadim Karim. 

Dr. Karim reported the following: She reviewed DCFS documentation and interviewed 

Mother but did not have access to Mother’s mental health records. Dr. Karim was 

concerned that Mother “appears to have ‘self-diagnosed’ that she no longer requires any 

 

11 The court also sustained count j-1 in Allison’s petition. 
12

psychotropic medication without first consulting a psychiatrist.” In terms of Mother 

being assaulted and held hostage by Juan, Mother “may have unresolved symptoms of 

traumatic stress that also require individual therapy” and “further suggests that the child, 

Isabella, was possibly exposed to the physical assaults.” In Dr. Karim’s opinion, Mother 

“does not appear to pose a direct physical or emotional threat to her children. However, 

there is still the possibility of threat of harm to herself, as well as the potential for running 

away again with her children (which appears to be a repetitive pattern for her)–thus 

putting the children at current risk.” Dr. Karim recommended a second opinion with a 

psychiatrist familiar with her history and that such an evaluation be completed “prior to 

any change in her current visitation status.”12 Dr. Karim also recommended several 

clinical interventions. 

On August 13, 2014, the juvenile court continued the disposition hearing in order 

for Mother to obtain a second evaluation. The court ordered Mother to submit to a full 

psychiatric evaluation. 

On September 29, 2014, DCFS filed a Last Minute Information for the Court 

reporting that two weeks earlier Mother had gone to make an appointment at West 

Central Mental Health for a psychiatric evaluation but claimed she was told, “‘she does 

not show symptoms and therefore cannot be evaluated.’” DCFS was unable to 

communicate with staff at the center to determine if Mother disclosed her history or 

current concerns. DCFS also reported that Mother was not attending scheduled DCFSmonitored visits with the children and expressed concern that Cesar and Jonathan might 

be allowing Mother to visit without DCFS approval. 

At the September 29, 2014 disposition hearing, the juvenile court received into 

evidence DCFS reports and a certificate of completion for Mother of a parenting 

program. 

 

12 Dr. Karim recommended that “DCFS should consider unmonitored visits after 

[Mother] can display that she complied with outpatient treatment as deemed necessary by 

the evaluating psychiatrist (including a medication review).” 
13

After argument, the juvenile court indicated that it was looking for “some kind of 

proof that [Mother] addressed her psychiatric evaluation, but all I have is Mother’s 

statement . . . that she went to be evaluated and that she was symptom[] free.”

13

 Based on 

the lack of proof that Mother was symptom free and the 730 evaluation and Mother’s 

testimony that she runs away and looks inward, “the court feels that here is still a risk 

until we get some kind of indication that Mother is attempting to address these issues.” 

The juvenile court then declared the children dependents of the court, removed them from 

Mother’s custody and ordered them released to their respective fathers. The court 

ordered Mother to participate in a parenting program, mental health counseling, 

psychiatric evaluation, individual counseling under the supervision of a licensed 

therapist, and to take all prescribed psychotropic medication. The court also ordered 

follow-up for Allison’s kidney issues. The court ordered monitored visits for Mother 

with DCFS discretion to liberalize. 

Mother appealed. 

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Mother contends that the jurisdictional findings were not supported by 

substantial evidence, because Mother’s mental and emotional issues did not place the 

children at substantial risk of harm. Specifically, Mother contends that the situation with 

Juan was a “one-time incident of poor judgment” and there was “no evidence whatsoever 

that Isabella witnessed” the domestic violence. Mother further contends that, even 

assuming Mother’s mental health concerns posed a risk or harm to her children, the 

juvenile court should not have asserted jurisdiction because the respective fathers stepped 

forward to care for the children, eliminating the necessity of juvenile court jurisdiction. 

Finally, Mother contends that substantial evidence did not support removing the children 

 

13 The court noted that at the jurisdictional hearing, Mother stated that she was 

cleared by a doctor but could not provide any proof, saying she did not remember the 

name of the doctor and all paperwork was lost when MGM was evicted, concluding 

“Again. No proof.” 
14

from Mother’s home when the court had the alternative of requiring Mother to reside in 

MGM’s home where MGM and Cesar would be two “extra” pairs of eyes on Mother and 

Isabella. 

“The basic question under section 300 is whether circumstances at the time of the 

hearing subject the minor to the defined risk of harm.” (In re Nicholas B. (2001) 88 

Cal.App.4th 1126, 1134.) At the jurisdiction hearing, “[p]roof by a preponderance of 

evidence must be adduced to support a finding that the minor is a person described by 

Section 300.” (§ 355, subd. (a).)

“In reviewing the jurisdictional findings and the disposition, we look to see if 

substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supports them. [Citation.] In 

making this determination, we 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.” (In re Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 

183, 193.) “We do not reweigh the evidence or exercise independent judgment, but 

merely determine if there are sufficient facts to support the findings of the trial court.” 

(In re Matthew S. (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 315, 321.)

“On review, we employ the substantial evidence test, however bearing in mind the 

heightened burden of proof” at the trial level of clear and convincing evidence for the 

removal of a child. (In re Kristin H. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1635, 1654.) 

Under section 300, subdivision (b), jurisdiction is appropriate where the court 

finds “[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 by the inability of the 

parent or guardian to provide regular care for the child due to the parent’s . . . substance 

abuse.” 

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s 

determinations and deferring to the court’s credibility determinations, we affirm. Mother 

had a history of running away and a mental health history that included several 
15

involuntary hospitalizations, drug use, depression, bipolar disorder, and suicidal ideation. 

Mother discontinued taking her psychotropic medication and her treatment around the 

time of her pregnancy with Isabella. The juvenile court found Mother’s claim not to be 

credible that a doctor told her that she did not need to take psychotropic medication after 

Isabella’s birth. Mother ran away with Isabella in 2013 and had a violent incident with 

Juan, during which Juan physically assaulted Mother, held Mother and Isabella hostage, 

and threatened to take Isabella from Mother.14 Mother concedes that Mother “did place 

herself in a situation that was potentially harmful” because Juan used physical violence to 

prevent her from leaving, but she argues that it was a “one-time incident of poor 

judgment.” The evidence, however, supports the conclusion that running away was a 

pattern with Mother. Mother testified about her mental health diagnosis and that some of 

her behaviors that caused concern included running away, not listening to others, doing 

“stuff that wasn’t right,” and not showing emotion. Mother’s hospitalization records 

showed that she had run away on prior occasions. And Cesar expressed to DCFS that he 

was scared Mother would run away again with Isabella. 

Moreover, the juvenile court did not find Mother’s claim credible that she was not 

hiding from DCFS or concealing Isabella from DCFS. Mother’s statements to DCFS

supported the court’s conclusion that Mother did in fact conceal Isabella and purposely 

did not use her medical card, food stamps or social security card to care for her children 

in order to conceal them. During the time she was concealing Isabella from DCFS, 

Mother also failed to obtain follow-up medical treatment for Allison’s kidney issue. 

Mother’s situation is, thus, distinguishable from the cases she cites where no 

jurisdiction was found. (Compare In re Matthew S. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1311, 1319 

[parent “consistently obtained medical treatment for the children” and “voluntarily 

participated in extensive therapy for herself over the years”]; In re David M. (2005) 134 

Cal.App.4th 822, 827 [parents “obtained regular, appropriate medical care” for their 

 

14 Mother asserts that there was no evidence that Isabella witnessed Juan’s 

physical violence against Mother. Juan, however, did threaten to take Isabella from 

Mother if she tried to leave and effectively held Isabella, along with Mother, hostage. 
16

children]; In re James R. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 129, 133 [parents were “very attentive 

to the minors’ . . . medical needs” and parent had voluntarily initiated services before 

social services agency involved].)

Accordingly, substantial evidence supported the juvenile court’s jurisdictional 

finding. 

Next, Mother argues that even if Mother’s conduct placed the children at risk or 

harm, the juvenile court should not have asserted jurisdiction because the respective 

fathers had stepped forward to care for the children, eliminating the necessity of juvenile 

court jurisdiction. The case relied upon by Mother is distinguishable. In In re A.G.

(2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 675, although mother was unable to care for the children due to 

her mental illness, the father had shown “remarkable dedication” and shown he was able 

to protect the children from mother’s mental illness by ensuring that there was adult 

supervision, other than mother, of the children at all times and the one time mother was 

left alone with the children no harm was reported. (Id. at p. 684.) Here, while Isabella 

was in Mother’s care, she ran away and the incident with Juan, discussed above, 

occurred. As to Allison, Jonathan stated that despite his concerns he left Allison in 

Mother’s care because he had to work. 

Finally, Mother argues that the court had the alternative of requiring Mother to 

reside in MGM’s home where MGM and Cesar would be two “extra” pairs of eyes on 

Mother and Isabella. We conclude that substantial evidence supported the juvenile 

court’s determination to remove the children from Mother’s care. In addition to the 

evidence available at the jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court also received the 730 

Psychological Evaluation report by Dr. Karim. Dr. Karim opined that “there is still the 

possibility of threat of harm to herself, as well as the potential for running away again 

with her children (which appears to be a repetitive pattern for her)—thus putting the 

children at current risk.” Dr. Karim recommended a second opinion with a psychiatrist 

familiar with her history and that such an evaluation be completed “prior to any change in 

her current visitation status.” Mother, however, did not submit to full psychiatric 

evaluation as ordered by the court. Rather, Mother claimed to be told that she could not 
17

be evaluated because she had no symptoms, but the court did not find this evidence to be 

convincing proof that she was symptom free. Moreover, the evidence showed that 

Mother had previously run away from MGM’s home on several occasions, including the 

2013 incident when she took Isabella with her. The juvenile court could have reasonably 

concluded that “extra” eyes would not prevent Mother from running away again and 

taking the children with her. 

DISPOSITION

We affirm the juvenile court’s findings and orders.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

CHANEY, J.

We concur:

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

JOHNSON, J.