Court Opinion

ID: 9896302
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 21:05:27.154875+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:44.104541
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/9/23 In re Calia Q. CA2/7
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

In re CALIA Q. et al., Persons                              B325760
Coming Under the Juvenile Court                             (Los Angeles County Super.
Law.                                                        Ct. No. 22CCJP03918)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,

         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.

LATRICIA Q.,

         Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, Lisa Brackelmanns, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.
     Donna P. Chirco, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and David Michael Miller, Senior
Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                  __________________________

      Latricia Q. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s
jurisdiction findings and disposition orders declaring 16-year-old
Calia Q., 12-year-old Monica C., six-year-old Marco C., and four-
year-old Rene C. dependents of the court pursuant to Welfare and
Institutions Code section 300, former subdivision (b)(1).1 Mother
contends there is no substantial evidence to support the
jurisdiction findings that her abuse of methamphetamine and
marijuana placed the children at substantial risk of serious
physical harm. We affirm.

      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A.    The Referral and Investigation
      On August 31, 2022 the Los Angeles County Department of
Children and Family Services (Department) received a referral
stating Calia told the reporter that Marco C., Sr. (Father) locked

1     The Legislature amended Welfare and Institutions Code
section 300, effective January 1, 2023, in part by revising
subdivision (b)(1) to specify in separate subparagraphs ways in
which a child may come within the jurisdiction of the juvenile
court due to the failure or inability of the child’s parent or
guardian to adequately supervise or care for the child. Further
statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

                                2
Calia out of their home.2 When Calia asked Father to open the
front door, he opened it and threw a glass bottle and plant at
Calia, leaving a scratch on her chin. A social worker and
investigating police officer interviewed Calia and did not observe
a scratch or other evidence that she had been hit by a bottle.
Calia later stated Father threw a glass bottle that shattered, and
she “‘thought it hit [her] face but it didn’t.’”
       Father told the social worker that he was sitting outside
the house drinking a beer when Calia walked outside the home.
When Calia ignored Father’s attempts to get her attention, he
threw a glass bottle, which hit a small wall near his driveway.
Neither the bottle nor shattered glass hit Calia. Father
acknowledged it was inappropriate to throw the glass bottle.
Father was angry at Calia because she and her friend had taken
his vehicle without permission earlier that month. Calia also
made four unauthorized purchases using Father’s credit card
information. Father denied asking Calia to leave or locking her
out of the home. He consented to an on-demand drug and alcohol
test, and he tested negative for all substances.
       Mother reported Calia was at times disobedient and
disrespectful, and she had stolen money and Father’s car. She
also did not attend school regularly. Mother was not at home
when the incident occurred. Father worked outside the home;
Mother stayed home to care for the children. Mother denied any
drug use, although she admitted she had a history of prior
substance abuse. During Mother’s pregnancy with Calia, Mother

2     Father is the biological father of Monica, Marco, and Rene.
Calia’s biological father is Damero G., whose whereabouts were
unknown. Neither Father nor Damero is a party to this appeal.

                                3
tested positive for marijuana 15 times. In addition, Calia tested
positive for marijuana shortly after her birth in January 2005. In
June 2008 Mother was arrested for driving under the influence of
alcohol (DUI) following an automobile accident in which no one
was injured. Mother also was arrested in 2010 and 2022 for
driving under the influence of alcohol.3 Because of Mother’s prior
drug use, the social worker asked Mother to drug test. Mother
consented, and on September 12, 2022 she tested positive for
amphetamine, methamphetamine, and marijuana.
      On September 28, 2022 the social worker asked a school
staff member about her interactions with Mother. The staff
member reported she had no concerns. Mother was appropriate,
and she did not appear to be under the influence of any drug
when picking up the children from school.

B.    The Dependency Petition and Detention Hearing
      On October 6, 2022 the Department filed a petition
pursuant to section 300, former subdivision (b)(1). The petition
alleged Mother had a history of substance abuse including
methamphetamine, and she abused amphetamine,
methamphetamine, and marijuana, which rendered her
incapable of providing regular care and supervision of the
children. Further, Marco and Rene were of such a young age as

3     Mother’s criminal history includes the 2022 DUI arrest, as
Mother acknowledges in her opening brief. But Mother denied in
an interview with the dependency investigator that she had the
recent arrest for a DUI. Father reported Mother dealt with an
outstanding warrant in 2022, which caused the DUI arrest to
appear on her criminal record for that year.

                                4
to require constant care and supervision. Father knew or
reasonably should have known of Mother’s substance abuse, and
he failed to protect the children by allowing Mother to reside in
the home and have unlimited access to the children.
       At the October 7, 2022 detention hearing, the juvenile court
detained the children from Mother and placed them in Father’s
home. The court granted Mother monitored visitation for a
minimum of nine hours per week with Father allowed to monitor
the visits.

C.     The Jurisdiction and Disposition Report
       According to the November 17, 2022 jurisdiction and
disposition report, Mother entered a residential treatment
program on October 3, 2022. Mother told the dependency
investigator that she had been sober for 18 days, and she did not
think she continued to have a drug problem. Further, Mother
had four negative drug tests from October 20 to November 9,
2022.
       Mother reported she started using methamphetamine when
she was 16 years old, and she had “‘been using off and on for
23 years.’” Mother stated, “‘I’ve been sober when I’m pregnant.
Then I started using after giving birth. I always look forward to
giving birth so I can use again. But I wait a bit and then I
started using maybe within 2 weeks of giving birth.’” Mother
added, “‘I tried to use it as much as I could. I still sleep 5-6
hours. The pregnancies and babies are sort of what make me
use. . . . I have to keep the house up, take the children to school,
cook, pick them up, feed, and help with homework because I
didn’t work. . . . It was hard for me to get out of bed without
using. I had to have a lot to stay energized.’” Mother also stated,

                                 5
“‘I use marijuana every day. It keeps me calm when I catch an
attitude. I started smoking marijuana when I was 14.’” Mother
stored the drugs in her car, and she did not use drugs around the
children. Mother reported Father did not know of her
methamphetamine use.
       Father told the dependency investigator that he “‘was
shocked’” when he saw Mother’s positive test results for
amphetamine and methamphetamine. Father stated, “‘I’ve
known mom for about 16 years, since Calia was a baby. Since
I’ve known her, she’s always been a night owl. I never had any
idea that she was using or I would have found out when she going
to prenatal care.’” Father added, “‘I know what people look like
that use, but she didn’t look like that. . . . I would see her smoke
marijuana. She would smoke outside. I would watch the kids, if
she was under the influence. She would use it to relax.’”
       The dependency investigator also interviewed the children
and two maternal relatives. Calia refused to talk to the
dependency investigator. Monica said, “‘My mom didn’t always
cook. Sometimes she wouldn’t get out of bed. I asked for food
and she told me how to make it. . . . Sometimes she was in bed
all day. My mom would lay down. [Calia], me, or my dad would
cook. My mom would be up at night and would clean sometimes.
Sometimes she would sleep all day and night.’” Six-year-old
Marco stated Mother “‘would lay down, sometimes she said she
was sick. She wouldn’t get out of bed. My dad would help us
take a shower. Monica would help.” Marco added, “‘My mom
sometimes made eggs. But sometimes Calia or Monica or my dad
made food.’” Four-year-old Rene was unable to provide any
meaningful statement because of her limited verbal ability. The
maternal grandmother, Monique M., was not aware of Mother’s

                                 6
drug use, and she had no concerns regarding Mother’s care of the
children. Likewise, maternal aunt Shanida J. did not have any
concerns regarding Mother’s care of the children.

D.    The Jurisdiction and Disposition Hearing
      At the November 30, 2022 jurisdiction and disposition
hearing, Mother submitted a November 29 progress report from
her counselor at the residential treatment program stating
Mother was enrolled in a 90-day residential treatment program
and had been in the program for 59 days. Mother “remained
compliant with . . . program requirements to date and has
obtained a sponsor.” Mother “continue[d] to attend 4 groups per
day 5 days per week totaling a minimum of 20 hours of group
counseling weekly.” Mother submitted to weekly random drug
testing and tested negative for drugs. Mother also was attending
a 10-week parenting class.
      Following arguments from the attorneys, the juvenile court
sustained the allegations against Mother under section 300,
former subdivision (b)(1), and dismissed the allegation that
Father failed to protect the children. The court declared the
children dependents of the court, removed them from Mother’s
physical custody, and released them to Father. The court ordered
Mother to participate in a drug and alcohol program with
aftercare, random or on-demand weekly drug testing, a 12-step
program with court card and sponsor, and individual counseling
to address any case issues, including substance abuse, “effective
communication with Calia,” and parenting. The court granted
Mother monitored visits for a minimum of at least nine hours per

                               7
week with the Department having discretion to liberalize
visitation.
       Mother timely appealed.4

                          DISCUSSION

A.     Governing Law and Standard of Review
       The juvenile court may assume jurisdiction over a child
when “[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 the child’s parent or guardian to
adequately supervise or protect the child.” (§ 300, former
subd. (b)(1).) “A jurisdiction finding under section 300,
subdivision (b)(1), requires the Department to prove three
elements: (1) the parent’s or guardian’s neglectful conduct or
failure or inability to protect the child; (2) causation; and
(3) serious physical harm or illness or a substantial risk of

4      In her appellant’s opening brief, Mother challenged the
jurisdiction findings and the disposition orders removing the
children from her physical custody and ordering monitored
visitation. On June 27, 2023 the Department filed a motion for
judicial notice of postjudgment evidence and a motion for partial
dismissal of Mother’s appeal as moot. The Department argued
Mother’s appeal was partially moot because the juvenile court
returned the children to Mother’s custody at the May 31, 2023
six-month review hearing. (§ 366.21, subd. (e).) We granted the
Department’s motions, partially dismissing Mother’s appeal as
moot because Mother’s challenges to the November 30, 2022
disposition orders “have been superseded by subsequent orders
from the juvenile court dated May 31, 2023.”

                                  8
serious physical harm or illness.” (In re Cole L. (2021)
70 Cal.App.5th 591, 601 (Cole. L.); accord, In re S.F. (2023)
91 Cal.App.5th 696, 712; see In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 624
[“section 300(b)(1) authorizes dependency jurisdiction without a
finding that a parent is at fault or blameworthy for her failure or
inability to supervise or protect her child”].)
       “Although section 300 requires proof the child is subject to
the defined risk of harm at the time of the jurisdiction hearing
[citations], the court need not wait until a child is seriously
abused or injured to assume jurisdiction and take steps necessary
to protect the child.” (Cole L., supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at pp. 601-
602; accord, In re L.O. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 227, 238 [“‘Although
there must be a present risk of harm to the minor, the juvenile
court may consider past events to determine whether the child is
presently in need of juvenile court protection.’”].) “A parent’s
‘“[p]ast conduct may be probative of current conditions” if there is
reason to believe that the conduct will continue.’” (Cole L., at
p. 602; accord, In re S.F., supra, 91 Cal.App.5th at pp. 712-713.)
       We review the juvenile court’s jurisdiction findings for
substantial evidence in light of the whole record. (In re I.C.
(2018) 4 Cal.5th 869, 892; In re R.T., supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 633.)
Substantial evidence is “evidence which is reasonable, credible,
and of solid value.” (In re I.C., at p. 892; accord, Cole L., supra,
70 Cal.App.5th at p. 602.) “‘[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.’” (In re
R.T., at p. 633; accord, In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773; Cole
L., at p. 602 [“while substantial evidence may consist of

                                 9
inferences, any inferences must rest on the evidence; inferences
based on speculation or conjecture cannot support a finding”].)
“The appellant has the burden of showing there is no evidence of
a sufficiently substantial nature to support the findings or
orders.” (In re E.E. (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 195, 206; accord, In re
D.B. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 320, 328-329.)

B.    Substantial Evidence Supports the Jurisdiction Findings
      Under Section 300, Former Subdivision (b)(1)
      Mother contends there was no evidence her drug use
resulted in neglectful conduct, arguing she took care of the
children; the school and her family members did not have any
concerns about her care of the children; and Father and the
children were not aware of Mother’s methamphetamine use.
Mother also asserts there was no substantial risk of harm to the
children because at the time of the November 30, 2022 hearing,
she was 60 days into a 90-day drug treatment program, was
participating in 20 hours of counseling each week, tested negative
for drugs in weekly random drug tests, had a relapse plan, and
visited with the children. Further, Mother was cooperative and
motivated to ensure the children could remain home in Father’s
care.
      Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s
jurisdiction findings that Mother’s history of substance abuse and
continued use of amphetamine, methamphetamine, and
marijuana rendered her incapable of providing regular care and
supervision of the children. Mother reported she started using
marijuana when she was 14 years old and methamphetamine
when she was 16. Mother tested positive for marijuana 15 times
while pregnant with Calia, and Calia tested positive for

                                10
marijuana shortly after birth. Mother admitted she had been
using methamphetamine “‘off and on for 23 years.’” Mother said
she was sober when she was pregnant, but she “‘always look[ed]
forward to giving birth so [she] can use again.’” Mother added, “‘I
tried to use it as much as I could. . . . It was hard for me to get
out of bed without using. I had to have a lot to stay energized.’”
Mother also admitted to daily use of marijuana, and then tested
positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and marijuana on
September 12, 2022. Notwithstanding this long, unresolved
history of substance abuse and multiple relapses, Mother
believed after 18 days of sobriety in the residential drug
treatment program that she no longer had a substance abuse
problem.
       Mother contends substance abuse, without more, is an
insufficient ground to assert dependency jurisdiction. (In re L.W.
(2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 840, 849 (L.W.) [“[O]ur case law stands for
the proposition that drug use or substance abuse, without more,
is an insufficient ground to assert jurisdiction in dependency
proceedings under section 300.”]; In re Rebecca C. (2014)
228 Cal.App.4th 720, 727-728 [mother’s abuse of
methamphetamine, amphetamine, and marijuana alone did not
support jurisdiction finding]; In re Drake M. (2012)
211 Cal.App.4th 754, 769 [jurisdiction finding based on medical
marijuana usage “alone without any evidence that such usage
has caused serious physical harm or illness or places a child at
substantial risk of incurring serious physical harm or illness”
must be reversed], disapproved on other grounds in In re D.P.

                                11
(2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 282-283.)5 But unlike Rebecca C. and
Drake M., here the juvenile court did not assume jurisdiction over
the children because of Mother’s substance abuse alone.
      L.W. is on point. There, the mother challenged the
jurisdiction findings that her abuse of cocaine and alcohol placed
her child at substantial risk of physical harm. (L.W., supra,
32 Cal.App.5th at pp. 845, 848.) The Court of Appeal noted, “It is
undisputed there was no evidence of and no specific finding of
past harm to L.W. as result of Mother’s substance abuse. L.W.
stated she never saw any drugs or paraphernalia at home, never
saw Mother abuse drugs and felt safe living with her Mother.
She was well fed, groomed, and regularly attended school. All
percipient witnesses and family members agreed Mother was a
good parent to L.W. and all denied having concerns about
Mother’s abilities as a mother.” Nevertheless, the court found
jurisdiction was warranted because a year prior to the referral,
Mother was arrested twice for driving under the influence of
alcohol and was convicted of reckless driving for the more recent

5      Mother also relies on Jennifer A. v. Superior Court (2004)
117 Cal.App.4th 1322, but that case does not involve a challenge
to the jurisdiction findings. In Jennifer A., the court held there
was no substantial evidence to support the finding at the
section 366.22 hearing that returning the children to the
mother’s physical custody would be detrimental to them. (Id. at
p. 1326.) The court found the mother was in substantial
compliance with her reunification plan notwithstanding her two
positive tests for alcohol and marijuana and nine missed drug
tests, and there was no “testimony linking Mother’s marijuana
and alcohol use to her parenting judgment or skills.” (Id. at
p. 1346.)

                                12
arrest. (Id. at p. 850.) The court explained, “That there were two
arrests and at least one conviction within a year of the referral
shows Mother’s substance abuse is now spilling over into areas
that will pose a substantial risk of physical harm to L.W.” (Ibid.)
      Similar to the mother in L.W., Mother denies her substance
abuse affected her ability to supervise and care for the children.
Mother relies on statements by Monica and Marco in their
September 1, 2022 interviews for the detention report in which
they said Mother cooked food for the children, took care of them,
watched them when they were home, and took them to doctors’
appointments. Monica and Marco also denied seeing Mother
smoke or Mother being “unable to wake up” or “acting weird.”
However, in their subsequent statements to the dependency
investigator on October 20, Monica and Marco indicated Mother
was unable to provide regular care for the children. Monica
reported Mother sometimes “was in bed all day” and at times
“‘would sleep all day and night.’” Marco likewise reported that
Mother would say she was sick and not get out of bed all day.
Marco added that Father and Monica would help him take a
shower when Mother was in bed. Monica and Marco also stated
that Father, Calia, or Monica would cook when Mother did not.
      We commend Mother for her participation in a substance
abuse program starting in October 2022. But given her history of
stopping her methamphetamine use and then relapsing, at the
time of the jurisdiction and disposition hearing the children were
at substantial risk of physical harm if Mother again relapsed.
Further, six-year-old Marco and four-year-old Rene were
especially in need of parental care and supervision given their

                                13
young ages.6 Mother’s minimization of her neglectful conduct
and failure to acknowledge she had a substance abuse problem
support the juvenile court’s finding Mother’s substance abuse
created a substantial risk of harm to the children. (In re A.F.
(2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 283, 293 [“In light of mother’s failure to
recognize the risks to which she was exposing the minor, there
was no reason to believe the conditions would not persist should
the minor remain in her home.”]; In re Gabriel K. (2012)
203 Cal.App.4th 188, 197 [“One cannot correct a problem one fails
to acknowledge.”]; In re Esmeralda B. (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th
1036, 1044 [“[D]enial is a factor often relevant to determining
whether persons are likely to modify their behavior in the future
without court supervision.”].)

6      In In re Christopher R. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1219,
we applied the presumption that for children six years old or
younger, “‘the 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 harm.’” (Accord, In re K.B.
(2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 593, 603 [“When a child is of tender age, a
parent’s substance abuse can be prima facie evidence of a risk of
serious physical harm or illness.”]; In re Drake M., supra,
211 Cal.App.4th at p. 767.) Because the validity of the tender
years’ presumption is before the Supreme Court in In re N.R.
(April 29, 2022, B312001) [nonpub. opn.], review granted August
24, 2022, S274943, we do not rely on the presumption to find
jurisdiction appropriate here.

                               14
                         DISPOSITION

     The juvenile court’s jurisdiction findings are affirmed.

                                          FEUER, J.
We concur:

             SEGAL, Acting P. J.

             MARTINEZ, J.

                               15