Court Opinion

ID: 9403261
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-20 19:04:06.830395+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:06.070959
License: Public Domain

Filed 6/20/23 In re L.C. CA2/2
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

In re L.C. et al.,                                             B321708
Persons Coming Under the                                       (Los Angeles County
Juvenile Court Law.                                            Super. Ct. No.
                                                               21CCJP05577A-C)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,

         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.

M.G.,

         Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from findings and orders of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Terry T. Truong, Judge Pro Tempore.
Affirmed.
     Elizabeth C. Alexander, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Veronica Randazzo, Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
               ______________________________

      Defendant and appellant M.G. (mother) appeals from the
juvenile court’s January 19, 2022, jurisdictional findings and
dispositional orders in which her children, L.C. (born Apr. 2010),
Alejandro C., Jr. (Alejandro Jr., born Feb. 2015), and
Genevieve B. (born Dec. 2021),1 were declared dependents of the
court and removed from her custody. Because the findings and
orders are supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.
                          BACKGROUND
I. Referral and Initial Investigation
      Mother tested positive for amphetamines and cannabinoids
upon giving birth to Genevieve in early December 2021. After
receiving a referral alleging general neglect, a social worker with
the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family
Services (DCFS) responded to the hospital.
      The social worker interviewed mother, who stated that her
older children, L.C. and Alejandro Jr., had been living with their

1    We refer to L.C., Alejandro Jr., and Genevieve collectively
as minors.

                                 2
father, Alejandro C., Sr. (Alejandro Sr.), and his mother for about
a year. Genevieve’s father was Miguel B. (Miguel).2
      Mother disclosed domestic violence in her relationships
with both Alejandro Sr. and Miguel. Mother had separated from
Alejandro Sr. four years earlier and no longer communicated with
him. Mother reported a violent incident with Miguel that had
occurred while she was pregnant. Mother said that she initially
pushed Miguel during a verbal dispute and that he responded by
pushing her and causing her to fall off the bed. Miguel was
arrested, and their relationship ended.
      Mother stated that she had a 13-year history of marijuana
use and had also been using methamphetamine for two to three
years. Prior to her pregnancy, she had used marijuana about two
to three times per week and methamphetamine two to three
times per month. Mother admitted to using drugs twice during
her pregnancy. In September 2021, she smoked crystal
methamphetamine and shortly thereafter tested positive for
amphetamines at a prenatal care appointment. In late
November 2021, she smoked marijuana that she later learned
was laced with methamphetamine. Mother also reported that
she had been convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol
and was on probation. She agreed to submit to an on demand
drug test following her discharge from the hospital.
      Mother consented to the detention of minors.
      The social worker also interviewed Miguel, who reported
that he and mother had engaged in one incident of domestic
violence in August 2021. Mother had accused him of infidelity
and had yelled at, pushed, and slapped him. When he grabbed
mother’s arms to calm her, she lost her balance and fell to the

2     Neither Alejandro Sr. nor Miguel is a party to this appeal.

                                3
ground. Miguel was arrested and, while he was in custody,
mother moved out of the home. Since that incident, he had no
physical contact with mother. Miguel had previously been
arrested following a verbal dispute with mother, but those
charges were later dropped. Miguel disclosed a history of using
crystal methamphetamine, mushrooms, pills, and marijuana. He
denied recent drug use except for marijuana.
       Alejandro Sr. told the social worker that he and mother
separated four or five years earlier and had not communicated
since. He denied domestic violence during their relationship.
Alejandro Sr., L.C., and Alejandro Jr. lived with paternal
relatives. Alejandro Sr. denied all substance abuse but admitted
to using marijuana on a daily basis for insomnia and knee pain.
       Both L.C. and Alejandro Jr. stated that Alejandro Sr. and
their grandparents took good care of them. They preferred to
continue living with Alejandro Sr. and their grandparents and
visiting mother.
       According to mother’s probation officer, mother had been
ordered to participate in a first offenders program, an anti-drunk
driving program, and 52 weeks of alcoholics anonymous. Mother
had not provided documentation that she had participated in any
of her court-ordered programs. She had also been ordered to drug
test, but that requirement had not been implemented because of
the COVID-19 pandemic.
II. Dependency Petition
       On December 7, 2021, DCFS filed a dependency petition
seeking the juvenile court’s exercise of jurisdiction over minors
pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300,

                                4
subdivisions (a) (nonaccidental serious physical harm) and (b)(1)
(failure to protect).3
III. Last Minute Information for the Court (Dec. 10, 2021)
       DCFS reported that Genevieve’s meconium had tested
positive for amphetamines, opiates, and cannabinoids. Mother
and Miguel tested positive for marijuana on December 6, 2021.
IV. Detention Hearing
       At the December 10, 2021, detention hearing, the juvenile
court detained minors from mother and released them to their
respective fathers under DCFS supervision. Mother was granted
monitored visitation.
V. First Amended Dependency Petition
       On January 11, 2022, DCFS filed a first amended
section 300 petition on behalf of minors. Counts a-1 and b-2
alleged that mother and Miguel had a history of engaging in
violent physical altercations. Count b-1 alleged that mother’s
history of substance abuse and current abuse of marijuana,
amphetamines, and methamphetamine, rendered her incapable
of providing regular care and supervision of minors. Count b-3
alleged that Alejandro Sr.’s history of and current substance
abuse rendered him incapable of providing regular care and
supervision of L.C. and Alejandro Jr.4

3     All further statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.

4     Alejandro Sr.’s December 7, 2021, drug test returned
positive for marijuana, amphetamines, and methamphetamine.

                                5
VI. Jurisdiction/Disposition Report
      A. Interviews
      A dependency investigator conducted various interviews
regarding the allegations in the section 300 petition.
             1. Mother
      Mother admitted to using crystal methamphetamine while
pregnant when her grandmother died. Mother had also smoked a
marijuana “joint” shortly before Genevieve was born, but she
claimed to be unaware that it contained methamphetamine.
Mother also had a history of alcohol use. She had started
drinking when she became homeless in 2017. In 2019, she was
involved in a car accident that resulted in injuries to others. She
had not participated in her court-ordered programs because they
cost money and she was ill during her pregnancy.
      Mother described the incident of domestic violence with
Miguel and directed the dependency investigator to the police
report. Mother claimed that it “was an isolated incident.” She
said that Miguel had never hit or “laid hands on” her. She
stated, “it was just frustration . . . me trying to hug him and him
trying to keep me away from him.”
             2. Miguel
      Miguel discussed two incidents of domestic violence with
mother. During the first incident in 2020, Miguel was arrested.
He claimed that he did not hit mother but that she threatened
him with a knife.
      During the second incident in August 2021, Miguel stated
that mother “started yelling and making a scene” because she
thought he “was cheating on her.” He claimed that mother
pushed him off the bed and grabbed and scratched him. Miguel
grabbed mother by the arms to prevent her from throwing things

                                6
at him. Miguel denied pushing mother or that she fell. He stated
that he was “arrested . . . without having any proof.”
       Miguel and mother were not currently in a romantic
relationship, but he was “open to reconciling for . . . [Genevieve]’s
sake.”
             3. L.C. and Alejandro Jr.
       L.C. and Alejandro Jr. denied ever seeing mother drink
alcohol, use drugs, or “behav[e] weird.” They also denied
observing Miguel or mother hit each other.
       B. Police report
       DCFS obtained the El Monte Police Department report
from the August 31, 2021, domestic violence incident involving
mother and Miguel.
       When officers responded, mother said that she and Miguel
had been involved in a verbal argument when Miguel pushed her
off the bed by kicking her twice in the ribs. Mother defended
herself by scratching Miguel. Miguel dragged mother across the
floor by her hair, punched her cheek and lip, and strangled her
with both of his hands for approximately seven seconds. Mother
did not lose consciousness but felt as if “her eyes were going to
pop out of her head.” Mother was six and half months pregnant
with Miguel’s child at the time. Mother disclosed that Miguel
had strangled her during a previous domestic violence incident,
which she did not report. Mother did not want Miguel to be
prosecuted.
       Miguel reported that mother was upset because she was
not getting his attention. Mother scratched his leg, and he
defended himself by pushing her.

                                 7
        An officer observed mother to have bruises on her left
forearm, minor swelling on her face, and redness on her lip and
neck. Miguel had several scratches.
        The next day, mother spoke with a detective. She told him
that Miguel grabbed her hair, and she defended herself by
scratching Miguel’s neck. Miguel later pulled mother’s hair
again; to defend herself, mother threw a stuffed animal and a
napkin at Miguel and also tried to kick him. Miguel “placed his
foot on her right rib cage area and began to kick her off the bed.”
Mother then clarified that Miguel “did not kick her, but he placed
his foot on her right rib cage in order to kick her out of the bed.”
Mother fell to the floor. When mother stood up and sat back on
the bed, Miguel again put his foot on her right rib cage area and
pulled her hair. Miguel threw mother off of the bed, and she fell
to the floor and landed on the left side of her pregnant stomach.
        Mother stated that Miguel strangled her after she fell on
the floor the first time and told her, “‘I can kill you if I wanted
to[.]’” She recalled being punched twice in the face by Miguel
during the altercation. The detective observed various scratches
and bruises on mother.
        The detective also noted that Miguel and mother had been
“listed as suspect/victims” in a spousal abuse case in July 2020.
Mother also confirmed a prior unreported domestic violence
incident in February 2020. Miguel had strangled her, causing
her to lose consciousness.
VII. Last Minute Information for the Court (Jan. 11, 2022)
        As of January 8, 2022, mother had enrolled in a domestic
violence program, parenting education classes, and a substance
abuse program and had completed one session of each.

                                 8
VIII. Last Minute Information for the Court (Jan. 18, 2022)
      DCFS reported that, in January 2022, both mother and
Alejandro Sr. tested positive for marijuana. Miguel had missed
two drug tests.
IX. Adjudication Hearing
      After entertaining oral argument on January 19, 2022, the
juvenile court sustained, as amended by interlineation, count b-1
regarding mother’s substance abuse,5 count b-2 regarding
domestic violence between mother and Miguel,6 and count b-3

5     As sustained, count b-1 states: “[M]other . . . has a history
of substance abuse and is a current abuser of marijuana,
amphetamines, and methamphetamine[], which renders the
mother incapable of providing regular care and supervision of the
child[ren]. . . . [A]t the birth of . . . Genevieve, the mother had a
positive toxicology screen for cannabinoids and amphetamines.
On [December 4, 2021], . . . Genevieve’s meconium screen
indicated positive results for amphetamines, cannabinoids, and
opiates. . . . Alejandro[ Jr.] and Genevieve[] are of such young
age requiring constant care and supervision and the mother’s
substance abuse interferes with providing regular care and
supervision of the children. The mother’s substance abuse
endangers the children’s physical health and safety and places
the child[ren] at risk of serious physical harm, damage, and
danger.” (Bolding omitted.)
6      As sustained, count b-2 states: “[M]other . . . and . . .
mother’s male companion, Miguel . . . , have a history of engaging
in violent physical altercations. [I]n August 2021, while the
mother was pregnant with . . . Genevie[v]e, . . . [Miguel] grabbed
the mother’s arms and forcibly pushed the mother causing the
mother to fall. . . . [Miguel] punched the mother twice, pulled the
mother’s hair, and strangled the mother. The mother forcibly
pushed . . . [Miguel] and slapped . . . [Miguel]’s face. The violent

                                  9
regarding Alejandro Sr.’s substance abuse, all brought under
section 300, subdivision (b)(1). The court dismissed count a-1.
      As to count b-1, the juvenile court stated: “[T]here is ample
evidence that [mother] is using drugs, that she continues to use
drugs, and she has not tested for the Department. It would have
helped her situation if I could get a sense of what she is testing
at, but given that she has not, I do believe that she’s a current
user and has not made the decision to stop after her child’s
birth.”7 As to count b-2, the court found “sufficient evidence” of
“physical altercations” between mother and Miguel.
      The juvenile court declared minors dependents of the court
and removed them from mother’s custody. The court ordered L.C.
and Alejandro Jr. released to Alejandro Sr. and Genevieve
released to Miguel on the condition that the respective fathers
resided with respective paternal relatives. The court ordered
DCFS to provide enhancement services to mother and granted
mother monitored visitation with DCFS having the discretion to
liberalize.
X. Appeal
      Mother filed a timely notice of appeal from the
jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders.

conduct by . . . [Miguel] and the mother[] endangers the children’s
physical health and safety, creates a detrimental home
environment, and places the children at risk of serious physical
harm, damage, and danger.” (Bolding omitted.)
7    The juvenile court later acknowledged that mother had
submitted to drug testing on January 4, 2022.

                                10
XI. Subsequent Events8
       In October 2022, the juvenile court terminated its
jurisdiction over L.C. and Alejandro Jr. and issued a juvenile
custody order granting Alejandro Sr. sole legal and physical
custody of those children. Mother was entitled to monitored
visitation with L.C. and Alejandro Jr.
                          DISCUSSION
       On appeal, mother contends that insufficient evidence
supports the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings and
dispositional orders removing minors from her custody.9

8     On January 30, 2023, DCFS filed a motion requesting that
we take judicial notice of the juvenile court’s October 19, 2022,
and October 21, 2022, minute orders regarding L.C. and
Alejandro Jr., as well as the juvenile custody order dated
October 21, 2022. We hereby grant the motion. (Evid. Code,
§§ 452, subd. (d), 459, subd. (a); In re M.F. (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th
86, 110 [“While appellate courts rarely consider postjudgment
evidence or evidence developed after the ruling challenged on
appeal, such evidence is admissible for the limited purpose of
determining whether the subsequent development has rendered
an appeal partially or entirely moot”].)
9      Although mother does not challenge the jurisdictional
findings made against Alejandro Sr. and Miguel, and the juvenile
court’s jurisdiction has been terminated as to L.C. and
Alejandro Jr., we find that mother’s appeal is not moot. (See In
re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 277–278 [“a case is not moot where
a jurisdictional finding affects parental custody rights [citation],
curtails a parent’s contact with his or her child [citation], or ‘has
resulted in [dispositional] orders which continue to adversely
affect’ a parent [citation]”]; In re J.K. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th
1426, 1431–1432.)

                                 11
I. Jurisdictional Findings
       A. Applicable law
       Under section 300, subdivision (b)(1), the juvenile court has
jurisdiction over and may adjudge to be a dependent of the court
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”—
as relevant here—“[t]he failure or inability of the child’s
parent . . . to adequately supervise or protect the child” (§ 300,
subd. (b)(1)(A)) or “[t]he inability of the parent . . . to provide
regular care for the child due to the parent’s . . . substance abuse”
(§ 300, subd. (b)(1)(D)).
       “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 child to the
defined risk of harm.” (In re Emily L. (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 1,
15.) Still, “section 300 does not require that a child actually be
abused or neglected before the juvenile court can assume
jurisdiction. The subdivision[] at issue here require[s] only a
‘substantial risk’ that the child will be abused or neglected. The
legislatively declared purpose of these provisions ‘is to provide
maximum safety and protection for children who are currently
being physically, sexually, or emotionally abused, being
neglected, or being exploited, and to ensure the safety, protection,
and physical and emotional well-being of children who are at risk
of that harm.’ [Citation.]” (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773.)
       B. Standard of review
       Jurisdictional findings must be made by a preponderance of
the evidence. (§ 355, subd. (a); Cynthia D. v. Superior Court
(1993) 5 Cal.4th 242, 248.) We review those findings for
substantial evidence—“evidence that is reasonable, credible and

                                 12
of solid value. [Citations.] We do not evaluate the credibility of
witnesses, attempt to resolve conflicts in the evidence or
determine the weight of the evidence. Instead, we draw all
reasonable inferences in support of the findings, view the record
favorably to the juvenile court’s order and affirm the order even if
there is other evidence supporting a contrary finding.” (In re R.V.
(2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 837, 843.)
       “Substantial evidence may include inferences, so long as
any such inferences are based on logic and reason and rest on the
evidence.” (In re Madison S. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 308, 318.)
       C. Analysis
       Ample evidence supports the jurisdictional findings
pertaining to mother.
             1. Mother’s substance abuse (count b-1)
       Mother admitted to a 13-year history of marijuana use and
a two-to-three-year history of methamphetamine use. This drug
use continued during mother’s pregnancy with Genevieve: In
September 2021, she smoked crystal methamphetamine and in
late November 2021, shortly before Genevieve’s birth, she smoked
marijuana laced with methamphetamine. Mother tested positive
for amphetamines and cannabinoids upon Genevieve’s birth, and
Genevieve’s meconium tested positive for amphetamines, opiates,
and cannabinoids. After Genevieve’s birth, mother tested
positive for marijuana in December 2021 and January 2022. In
2019, mother had been involved in a car accident that resulted in
injuries to others and led to her conviction for driving under the
influence of alcohol. She was on probation but had not completed
her court-ordered programs.
       The foregoing constitutes substantial evidence that
mother’s substance abuse had subjected Genevieve to actual

                                13
physical harm and continued to place all minors at risk of future
harm. The juvenile court could reasonably infer this risk from
mother’s longstanding drug abuse, which had continued even
during her pregnancy with Genevieve. (See In re T.V. (2013)
217 Cal.App.4th 126, 133 [“A parent’s past conduct is a good
predictor of future behavior”]; In re Troy D. (1989)
215 Cal.App.3d 889, 899 [“prenatal use of dangerous drugs by a
mother is probative of future child neglect”].) Further,
Alejandro Jr. and Genevieve were “children of ‘tender years’” and,
thus, “‘the finding of substance abuse [wa]s prima facie evidence
of the inability of . . . [mother] to provide regular care resulting in
a substantial risk of harm.’ [Citations.]” (In re Christopher R.
(2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1219.)
       Mother contends that she had mitigated any harm or risk
of harm to minors by the time of the adjudication hearing,
pointing to her cooperation with DCFS and enrollment in
programs. We are not persuaded. While laudable, these factors
were insufficient to ameliorate the risk of harm posed to minors
from mother’s substance abuse. Mother also asserts that she
“was clean from all substances, except marijuana, which was at
declining level[s], establishing she was not using.” Mother
extrapolates too much from two drug tests. Given that mother
had tested positive for amphetamines and cannabinoids upon
Genevieve’s birth less than two months before the adjudication
hearing and continued to test positive for marijuana in
January 2022, the juvenile court was not compelled to find that
mother’s drug abuse had ceased. (See In re R.V., supra,
208 Cal.App.4th at p. 843 [under the substantial evidence
standard of review, appellate court does not “attempt to resolve
conflicts in the evidence”].)

                                  14
             2. Domestic violence (count b-2)
       Regarding domestic violence between mother and Miguel,
the police report from the August 31, 2021, incident provided
compelling evidence of a volatile and dangerous relationship.
Mother reported to the police that Miguel had strangled her
while she was six and a half months pregnant. She also disclosed
that, several months earlier, he had strangled her to the point
that she lost consciousness.
       The juvenile court could readily conclude that the violence
between mother and Miguel placed minors at substantial risk of
serious physical harm. (See In re S.O. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th
453, 460–461 [“‘domestic violence in the same household where
children are living is neglect; it is a failure to protect [them] from
the substantial risk of encountering the violence and suffering
serious physical harm or illness from it[]’”]; In re Benjamin D.
(1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1464, 1470, fn. 5 [“Both common sense and
expert opinion indicate spousal abuse is detrimental to
children”].) That mother and Miguel may not have shared a
romantic relationship at the time of the adjudication hearing
does not mean that a defined risk of harm to minors had ceased
to exist. Miguel told DCFS that he was open to reconciling with
mother. It is logical to infer that upon resumption of the
relationship, violence would again ensue. (See In re L.O. (2021)
67 Cal.App.5th 227, 238 [“‘“‘[P]ast violent behavior in a
relationship is “the best predictor of future violence[]”’”’”].) And,
given mother’s history of domestic violence with both Miguel and
Alejandro Sr., the court could infer a risk of violence between
mother and another future partner.
       Furthermore, mother had minimized the severity of the
August 2021 domestic violence incident with Miguel, telling the

                                 15
dependency investigator that it “was an isolated incident” and
that Miguel had never hit or “laid hands on” her. This denial,
which conflicts with mother’s past statements and the police
report, is itself evidence of a risk of recurrent domestic violence.
(See In re V.L. (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 147, 156 [“A parent’s denial
of domestic violence increases the risk of it recurring”]; In re
Gabriel K. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 188, 197 [“One cannot correct a
problem one fails to acknowledge”].)
II. Dispositional Orders Removing Minors from Mother
       A. Applicable law
       Before removing a minor from a parent’s custody, the
juvenile court is required to make one of five specified findings by
clear and convincing evidence. (§ 361, subd. (c).) One ground for
removal is that there is a substantial risk of injury to the child’s
physical health, safety, protection, or emotional well-being if he
or she were returned home, and there are no reasonable means to
protect the child. (§ 361, subd. (c)(1).) “‘“Clear and convincing”
evidence requires a finding of high probability. The evidence
must be so clear as to leave no substantial doubt. It must be
sufficiently strong to command the unhesitating assent of every
reasonable mind. [Citations.]’ [Citation.] Actual harm to a child
is not necessary before a child can be removed. ‘Reasonable
apprehension stands as an accepted basis for the exercise of state
power.’” (In re V.L., supra, 54 Cal.App.5th at p. 154.)
       B. Standard of review
       We review a dispositional order removing a minor from
parental custody for substantial evidence. (In re V.L., supra,
54 Cal.App.5th at p. 154.) Because the juvenile court must make
its finding that a ground for removal exists under the clear and
convincing evidence standard of proof (§ 361, subd. (c)), “the

                                16
question before the appellate court is whether the record as a
whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact
finder could have found it highly probable that the fact was true”
(Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1011).
      C. Analysis
      The same evidence that supports the juvenile court’s
exercise of dependency jurisdiction also constitutes substantial
evidence from which the juvenile court could find it highly
probable that minors would be at risk of substantial danger if
returned to mother’s custody. (§ 361, subd. (c)(1).)
      Resisting this conclusion, mother directs us to her
enrollment and participation in programs, drug test results,
cooperation with DCFS, and positive visitation with minors. In
so doing, mother essentially asks us to reweigh the evidence,
which the substantial evidence standard of review does not
permit. (Conservatorship of O.B., supra, 9 Cal.5th at p. 1008.)
Mother also questions why the juvenile court permitted minors to
remain in the custody of their respective fathers. That issue is
not before us in this appeal.

                               17
                          DISPOSITION
      The jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders are
affirmed.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

                               _____________________, Acting P. J.
                               ASHMANN-GERST

We concur:

________________________, J.
CHAVEZ

________________________, J.
HOFFSTADT

                                18