Filed 1/27/14 In re L.B. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 THREE

In re L.B. et al., Persons Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law.

_____________________________________

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT 

OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

D.F. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

 B249849

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. CK98334)

APPEAL from a judgment and orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, Stephen Marpet, Judge and Marguerite D. Downing, Judge. Affirmed.

Megan Turkat Schirn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant D.F.

Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant D.B.

John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, 

Jeanette Cauble, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________
2

D. F. (mother) and D. B. (father) appeal from the dependency court’s order of

May 21, 2013, placing parents and L. B. (“L.”), D. B. (“D.”), and D. B. (“D. B.”) 

(hereinafter, the children) under the supervision of the social worker pursuant to Welfare 

and Institutions Code1section 360, subdivision (b),2 after sustaining a section 300 

petition. They contend substantial evidence does not support the sustained allegations 

that their drug use creates a risk of harm to the children. We affirm.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURE

L., born in 2005, D., born in 2008, and D. B., born in 2012, are the children of 

mother and father,3 who had been in a relationship for nine years. The parents abused 

cocaine. Father belonged to a criminal street gang. He had a history of convictions for 

possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359), dangerous weapons 

(former Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a)(1)), attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, 

subd. (a)), accessory (Pen. Code, § 32), and carrying a loaded firearm (former Pen. Code, 

§ 12031, subd. (a)(1)). Father’s most recent conviction was in 2005. Mother had a 

history of convictions for loitering (Pen. Code, § 653.22, subd. (a)), grand theft property 

(Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)), marijuana while driving (Veh. Code, § 23222, subd. (b)), 

unlicensed driver (Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a)), and prostitution (Pen. Code, § 647, 

subd. (b)). 

 

1

All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code, unless 

otherwise indicated.

2

Section 360, subdivision (b) provides: “If the court finds that the child is a person 

described by Section 300, it may, without adjudicating the child a dependent child of the 

court, order that services be provided to keep the family together and place the child and 

the child’s parent or guardian under the supervision of the social worker for a time period 

consistent with Section 301.” A disposition order made under section 360, subdivision 

(b) is an appealable order. (In re Adam D. (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1259-1261.) 

3

Father was found to be the presumed father of the children. 
3

On March 13, 2013, the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department conducted a search of 

the family residence as part of an investigation to locate firearms used in recent crimes. 

Father was the target of the search warrant. In the parents’ bedroom were found an 

empty .40 caliber semi-automatic gun magazine and five .45-caliber bullets. Several 

baggies containing what appeared to be narcotics residue and a small scale were found in 

the kitchen. The entire family was at home except L., who lived with her cousin during 

the school week to attend school and returned home on weekends. L. regularly missed 

school. Four friends of father were found in the residence. Mother did not know who 

they were. The residence belonged to father’s cousin, and the family had been living 

there since October 2012. Mother admitted she used cocaine at a club two days earlier,4

when father was at home with the children. She stated she did not use cocaine often. 

Father admitted the empty magazine belonged to him and that he took a “Molly,” which 

is a derivative of Ecstasy, two days earlier at a party. Methamphetamine is the prime 

ingredient of Ecstasy. Father was arrested for being an ex-felon in possession of live 

ammunition. 

Parents tested positive on March 14, 2012, for cocaine metabolite. Father did not 

test positive for methamphetamine. 

The children were detained by the Department of Children and Family Services 

(Department) following the execution of the search warrant, and a section 300 petition 

was filed. At the detention hearing on March 18, 2013, the children were released to 

parents. 

During an interview for the jurisdiction hearing report, mother denied a history of 

using drugs and stated she used cocaine on that single occasion only. She denied 

knowledge father had a criminal history or used drugs. Father denied knowledge mother 

used drugs. Parents denied knowledge of the baggies with drug residue or the bullets. 

 

4

Two days earlier was March 11, a weekend day. 
4

Father stated he did not know what was in the “Molly” when he took it. He denied a drug 

abuse history or that he experimented with drugs in the past. 

The family moved to another apartment in April 2013. The parents’ drug tests in 

late March and April were negative. The parents enrolled in rehabilitation programs. 

On May 21, 2013, the court sustained an amended petition, finding the children 

were persons described under section 300, subdivision (b), in that: mother and father 

were current users of cocaine which renders them unable to provide regular care and 

supervision, and, on March 11, 2013, parents were under the influence of drugs while the 

children were in their care, which endangered the children; and father has a criminal 

history of conviction of possession of marijuana for sale, and his illegal drug use 

endangers the children. The court stated: “the parents appear . . . [to have] minimized 

their [drug] use. Each of them indicate[s] that it was a one time use. I note that [father] 

has a conviction for possession of sale of marijuana. I also note that the court’s concerns 

is that the parents’ use of narcotics make[s] them susceptible to facts that drugs are not 

that bad for you, hanging out with the people who use drugs are not that bad, based upon 

their living environment. [The facts that ammunition was found in the home accessible 

to the children and father has convictions for weapons offenses are] factors in looking at 

the totality of this. I also note that there has been some missing of school. I note that the 

parents have gotten into programming, but the court has a concern that the parents are 

minimizing their drug use and there are bigger problems going on and that court 

supervision is warranted.” 

The court did not declare the children dependents of the court. The court ordered 

the children to remain released to parents. Pursuant to section 360, subdivision (b), 

parents and children were placed under the supervision of the Department for six months. 

Parents were ordered to participate in a drug program with random testing, parenting, and 

individual counseling. 
5

DISCUSSION

Substantial evidence supports the jurisdictional findings.

Parents contend substantial evidence does not support the finding their drug use 

placed the children at risk of harm, under section 300, subdivision (b). We disagree with 

the contention.

“ ‘In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the 

jurisdictional findings and disposition, we determine if substantial evidence, contradicted 

or uncontradicted, supports them. “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. [Citations.] ‘ “[T]he [appellate] court must review the whole 

record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses 

substantial evidence . . . such that a reasonable trier of fact could find [that the order is 

appropriate].” ’ [Citation.]” (In re Matthew S. (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 315, 321.)’ 

(See In re Angelia P. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 908, 924.)” (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 

773.) The pertinent inquiry is whether substantial evidence supports the finding, 

not whether a contrary finding might have been made. (In re Dakota H. (2005) 

132 Cal.App.4th 212, 228.)

Section 300, subdivision (b), in pertinent part, describes a child who “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 . . . to provide regular care for the 

child due to the parent’s . . . substance abuse.” “While evidence of past conduct may be 

probative of current conditions, the question under section 300 is whether circumstances 

at the time of the hearing subject the minor to the defined risk of harm.” (In re Rocco M.

(1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 814, 824.) The purpose of the juvenile court law is to provide 
6

“maximum safety and protection for children” being harmed or who are at risk of harm. 

(§ 300.2.) “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. Successful participation in a treatment program for 

substance abuse may be considered in evaluating the home environment.” (Ibid.) 

Mother admitted to using cocaine on March 11 and tested positive for cocaine on 

March 14. Father admitted to ingesting a derivative of Ecstasy, whose main ingredient is 

methamphetamine, on March 11. His positive test for cocaine on March 14 indicates he 

ingested cocaine as well. Mother admitted she used cocaine on prior occasions. 

Subsequently, parents denied prior drug use. However, each parent had a conviction for 

a drug-related offense, and several baggies containing what appeared to be narcotics 

residue, along with a small scale, were found in the kitchen of the family’s home. As the 

family had been living in the residence for six months, it is reasonable to infer those 

items belonged to them. The court did not believe parents’ denials of prior drug use and 

found parents were minimizing their drug use. This is substantial evidence the parents 

currently abused and had a history of abusing drugs. D. and D. B. lived at home with 

parents and L. was at home on weekends. March 11 was a weekend day. Thus, the 

children were in the care of parents on March 11 when parents used cocaine and Ecstasy. 

This is substantial evidence parents were under the influence when the children were in 

their care. The risk to children being cared for by a parent under the influence of drugs is 

not speculative. (See § 300.2; compare In re Drake M. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 754, 768-

769 [no evidence parents’ medical use of marijuana under a valid recommendation from 

a physician created a risk of harm].) Parents were not rehabilitated: they were enrolled 

in a drug rehabilitation program but had not completed it, and they were in denial of their 

drug use. It is reasonable to conclude that parents’ illegal drug use currently placed the 

children at risk.

The foregoing is ample substantial evidence supporting the court’s findings 

parents abused drugs and their drug use placed the children at substantial risk of harm. 
7

DISPOSITION

The judgment and orders are affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

KLEIN, P. J.

We concur:

CROSKEY, J.

ALDRICH, J.