Filed 4/26/16 In re Lily G. CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 FOUR

In re LILY G., a Person Coming Under 

the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND 

FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

FELICIA S., 

Defendant and Appellant.

 B267104

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. DK11554)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, D. 

Zeke Zeidler, Judge. Reversed.

Donna Balderston Kaiser, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant.

Office of the County Counsel, Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel and 

Jessica S. Mitchell, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

Appellant Felicia S. appeals the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding under 

Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) that she and Brian G. 

endangered their daughter, Lily G., by knowingly living in a room of a house 

where drug trafficking was taking place.1 Respondent Department of Children and 

Family Services does not oppose. Finding insufficient evidence to support the 

jurisdictional finding, we reverse. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On May 28, 2015, members of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department 

executed a warrant to search a house on Zola Avenue in Pico Rivera. The search

uncovered methamphetamine and two digital scales in a bottom-floor back 

bedroom, and two bullet-proof vests in an upstairs bedroom.

2

 The owner of the 

house, who was a gang member and lived in the upstairs bedroom, told 

investigators that all the items were hers. She and her boyfriend, a fellow gang 

member, were arrested, as was the occupant of the bedroom in which the drugs and 

scales were found. The deputies concluded the house was being used for drug 

trafficking.3 

 

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

2 Although the detention report stated the deputies also recovered two loaded 

handguns, the report prepared by a detective involved in the raid did not mention any 

weapons and did not indicate that any of the arrestees were charged with weapons 

possession. The detention report stated that a “‘large amount’” of methamphetamine was 

found inside the home, stored in “three . . . bindles.” The detective’s report stated that an 

unspecified quantity of methamphetamine was found in two plastic bags located inside a 

plastic box. 

3

The house had a history of drug activity, and had been raided in 2013. There were 

several video cameras mounted on the house, facing the front door and the nearby streets. 

According to investigators, such cameras were often used by drug traffickers to identify 

approaching threats. Prior to the May 2015 execution of the search warrant, deputies had 

(Fn. continued on next page.)
3

Mother, Father and Lily lived in a room in the raided house. Mother and 

three-month old Lily were home when the raid occurred. Mother and another 

occupant of the house were briefly detained, but not arrested. Investigators found 

no evidence that Mother or Father was involved in drug trafficking. No drugs, 

weapons, or drug-related items were found in their room. Mother said the family

had moved into the room in January, having gotten a referral from a friend of a 

friend. She and Father denied any knowledge of the drug-related activities of the 

other inhabitants of the house, stating that they tended to stay in their room and 

that, except for the kitchen, they had no access to other rooms. They did not leave 

Lily alone with anyone. The paternal grandmother said she had visited the house

and had seen nothing suspicious, and that she would not have allowed her 

grandchild to live there had she known of the illicit activity. Mother and Father 

admitted using drugs in the past, but said they had been clean for many years. 

Both drug tested on multiple occasions and were consistently negative for all 

substances. Father had a history of petty criminal offenses, including possession of 

controlled substances and paraphernalia, and a 2013 incident of domestic violence. 

He had nearly completed a 52-week domestic violence counseling program. He 

had had no arrests since 2013. Mother and Father were both employed; Mother 

was on maternity leave at the time of the raid. 

A petition under section 300 was filed, contending Mother and Father 

“created a detrimental and endangering home environment for [Lily] in that a large 

amount of methamphetamine and two loaded weapons were found in the child’s 

home within access of the child.” Lily was detained and placed with her paternal 

 

arrested three men leaving the house, all of whom were in possession of substantial 

amounts of methamphetamine. 
4

grandmother. Mother and Father left the Zola Avenue house, and with the 

permission of the court, moved in with the grandmother to care for Lily.4

At the July 2015 jurisdictional hearing, counsel for Mother and Father 

moved to dismiss the petition based on the absence of any evidence that the parents 

had knowledge of the drug-related activity occurring in the house. Lily’s counsel 

joined in the request to dismiss. In addition, she asked the court, at a minimum, to 

strike the allegations that drugs and weapons were found “[with]in the access of 

the child,” noting that three-month-old Lily was not mobile, that nothing harmful 

was found in the parents’ room, and that the rooms in which drugs were found 

were ones to which neither Lily nor her parents had access. 

The court struck the allegation that methamphetamine was “within access of 

the child,” as well as the allegation that “two loaded weapons were found in the 

child’s home, within access of the child.” The court nonetheless ruled that 

assertion of jurisdiction was appropriate under section 300, subdivision (b) (failure 

to protect), finding that Father in particular should have been aware “that there’s 

something going on” due to of “all the[] people coming in and out of the house” 

 

4

In the jurisdictional report, the caseworker stated that Mother and Father were 

taking good care of the girl, and that she was developing appropriately. 
5

and the presence of the video cameras.5The court ordered informal supervision 

under section 360, subdivision (c).6 Mother appealed.7 

DISCUSSION

As pertinent here, assertion of jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision 

(b), requires proof that “[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.” A true finding under subdivision (b) requires proof of: “(1) neglectful 

conduct by the parent . . . ; (2) causation; and (3) ‘serious physical harm or illness’ 

to the minor, or a ‘substantial risk’ of such harm or illness . . . .” (In re Rocco M. 

(1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 814, 820.) The burden of proof is on the agency. (§ 355, 

 

5

The sustained allegation read: “On 5/28/15, . . . [Mother and Father] created a 

detrimental and endangering home environment for the child in that a large amount of 

methamphetamine [sic].” 

6

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 [essentially six months (see §§ 301, subd. (a), 16506].” 

Unless the agency files a new petition under subdivision (c) alleging “that disposition 

pursuant to subdivision (b) has been ineffective in ameliorating the situation” and seeking 

a different disposition, there are no further court proceedings. 

7

 As explained in In re Adam D. (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1250, an order assigning the 

family to informal supervision under section 360, subdivision (b) is tantamount to a 

dispositional order and thus is appealable. (In re Adam D., supra, 183 Cal.App.4th at 

pp. 1260-1261.) The dismissal, which takes place automatically unless the agency files a 

new petition, does not render the appeal moot; the parents are entitled to a review of the 

jurisdictional findings that underlie the informal supervision order, because such findings 

could cause adverse collateral consequences in subsequent dependency or family law 

proceedings. (Id. at pp. 1258, 1260-1261.)
6

subd. (a); In re Veronica G. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 179, 185.) On appeal, we will 

uphold the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding if it is supported by substantial 

evidence. (In re J.N. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1022.) “‘Substantial evidence 

is evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value.’” (Ibid.) The court’s 

findings must be based on the evidence before it, not suspicion, speculation or 

conjecture. (People v. Reyes (1974) 12 Cal.3d 486, 500; Tracy J. v. Superior 

Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1424.)

On appeal, Mother contends substantial evidence did not support the court’s 

assertion of jurisdiction over Lily. Respondent did not file a brief, but submitted a 

letter stating the appeal has merit, and that “[t]he record does not establish 

sufficient evidence to support the [subdivision (b)] findings . . . .” Our review of 

the record leads us to agree. The original petition asserted that jurisdiction was 

warranted because “a large amount of methamphetamine and two loaded weapons 

were found in the child’s home, within access of the child.” The evidence did not 

substantiate the presence of loaded weapons in the house and that allegation was 

properly stricken. Although methamphetamine was found and seized in the raid, it 

was found in the room of another resident, not in the portions of the house where 

the child and her parents lived or “within [Lily’s] access.” In any event, Lily 

would have been unable to access any dangerous contraband as she was only a few 

months old. (See In re W.O. (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 906, 910-911 [presence of 

marijuana and cocaine in home of otherwise well-cared for children, standing 

alone, did not support assertion of jurisdiction where drugs were kept out of their 

reach].) 

The court attempted to amend the petition to remedy the deficiencies, but 

failed to replace the unproven stricken allegations with allegations supported by 

evidence, and the end result was an incomplete sentence of undetermined meaning. 

Assuming the court intended, as its comments at the hearing suggest, to find that 
7

Mother and Father endangered Lily by knowingly living with her in close 

proximity to ongoing methamphetamine trafficking, substantial evidence did not 

support such finding. As noted, the family neither lived in nor had access to the 

rooms in which drugs were found, and officers found no basis to arrest Mother or 

Father for drug dealing. Nor did the arrest of three people leaving the house with 

methamphetamine support an inference that a steady stream of people to the house 

necessarily put Father or Mother on notice of drug dealing. In short, substantial 

evidence did not support the court’s jurisdictional finding that Mother or Father 

knowingly placed Lily in danger by their unfortunate choice of residence. 

DISPOSITION

The jurisdictional order is reversed. All subsequent orders are vacated as 

moot.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

MANELLA, J.

We concur:

WILLHITE, Acting P. J.

COLLINS, J.