Court Opinion

ID: 9409862
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-19 18:04:25.399084+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:53.936035
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/19/23 In re Jason N. 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 JASON N., a Person                                   B320970
Coming Under the Juvenile                                  (Los Angeles County
Court Law.                                                 Super. Ct.
                                                           No. 22CCJP00327B)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,

         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.

JASON N.,

         Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Hernan D. Vera, Judge. Affirmed.
     Jamie A. Moran, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Jacklyn K. Louie, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                             ******

      Jason N. (father) appeals from an order of the juvenile
court removing Jason N., Jr. (born November 2020), from his
custody.1 Father contends Jason should have been placed with
him, in the home of paternal grandmother (PGM), in New York
under the supervision of the cooperating New York agency. We
find the evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that clear
and convincing evidence existed of a substantial danger to
Jason’s health, safety, and protection if placed with father, and
there were no reasonable means to protect the child without
removal. We affirm the order.

   COMBINED FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Referral and initial investigation
      On January 23, 2022, the Los Angeles County Department
of Children and Family Services (DCFS) received a call on the
hotline alleging the children were in an unsafe situation, living in
a tent in a homeless encampment on a median on a busy street in
Venice, California. A service provider tried to arrange services
for Amanda K. (mother) and the children.2 Mother refused

1     Jason’s half sibling Isabella (born April 2014) is part of this
dependency proceeding but is not a subject of this appeal, as
father is not Isabella’s father. Isabella is mentioned as needed.
Jason and Isabella collectively will be referred to as the children.
2     Mother is not a party to this appeal.

                                  2
assistance, including food and motel vouchers, and reacted
aggressively towards the outreach provider, causing the service
worker concern about the children sleeping in a tent in the cold
weather. The children appeared dirty and malnourished.
Mother was observed to have left the children outside the tent,
leaving them unsupervised. Two other people in the camp
reported that mother left the two children unattended “all the
time.”
       In a second call to the DCFS hotline, the caller provided
more information, including that mother and the children were
from New York and recently arrived in California. Mother
claimed to have left New York because she was not getting along
with maternal grandmother (MGM) and due to domestic violence
with father. Mother stated there was a protective order in place
in New York.
       A DCFS social worker made contact with mother at the
encampment on January 23, 2022. There were approximately 20
tents on a median with lanes of traffic on either side. Mother
insisted she was not homeless and that she had friends and
family in the area, but could not provide any contact information.
Mother became agitated and belligerent when the accompanying
Los Angeles Police Department officer pointed out that Isabella
was barefoot in the cold weather.
       Mother claimed to be having issues with father, including
him being mentally abusive and a drug dealer. She said there
was a restraining order against him and an upcoming custody
hearing in New York. Mother admitted she had been diagnosed
with “Bi-Polar Schizo affected” but provided varying answers to
whether she was taking medication. Mother admitted using
marijuana but was unclear when she had last used the drug.

                                3
      Jason was in a wet, dirty onesie without a diaper asleep in
a stroller. His arms and legs were streaked with dirt and covered
with sand. Isabella was also very dirty and unkempt and could
not tell the social worker when she last had a bath. Isabella
confirmed mother would leave her alone in the tent in charge of
the baby. Isabella reported Jason’s “daddy” was a bad man and
who used drugs.
      Mother stated father raped her in New York. Though she
was uncertain he was Jason’s father, she was hesitant to ask for
a paternity test as she believed father knew people who could
manipulate the results of such a test. Mother reported father
was a drug addict and dealer and was “organized gang stalking”
her. Mother added there had been involvement with child
protective services (CPS) in New York but did not provide
specifics. Mother admitted having been addicted to oxycodone
following a car accident in the past. She completed a 30-day
rehabilitation program, following an eight-day hospitalization,
and occasionally used marijuana and alcohol.
      The officers transported mother and the children to the
police station, expressing concern about the children being in the
encampment that was very dangerous. When mother was
informed the children would be detained, she became angry and
telephoned MGM, yelling that MGM had to come to California to
get the kids.
      The social worker spoke with MGM, who informed her that
mother relocated to California as planned, and there was trouble
with father, who had visitation. MGM confirmed mother had a
history of mental health issues and was previously addicted to
oxycodone, due to the fault of mother’s doctors. MGM was
uncertain if there was a CPS history in New York.

                                4
Petition and detention
       On January 25, 2022, DCFS filed a Welfare and
Institutions Code section 3003 petition on behalf of the children,
containing allegations of mother’s neglect, failure to supervise the
children and mental health issues. A first amended section 300
petition was later filed, which added counts regarding father’s
substance abuse and mother’s failure to protect the children. The
first amended petition alleged father had a history of substance
abuse including Xanax and cocaine and was a current user of
oxycodone, marijuana and cocaine, rendering him unable to
provide regular care for the children. The petition alleged
father’s substance abuse endangered the children’s physical
health and safety and created a detrimental home environment,
placing the children at risk of serious physical harm. On May 11,
2022, the juvenile court sustained this allegation.
       In a last minute information for the court filed on
January 28, 2022, DCFS reported a conversation between a local
social worker and a Sullivan County New York CPS social
worker, Jenesis Matos, on January 26, 2022. Matos reported the
family had an open referral in New York but no court filing.
There was a current family law proceeding pending, and father
had monitored visitation with the children. Mother had a history
of mental health issues, psychiatric hospitalizations, prescription
drug abuse, and leaving the children unsupervised. Mother once
told the authorities after leaving the children home alone that
the pit bull dogs would guard them. Mother had previously lost
custody of Isabella due to mental health issues and was not
medication compliant. Father had a history of using and dealing

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

                                 5
drugs, but was attending a program and doing well. Father
appeared to be genuinely trying to care for the children.
       A second last minute information for the court filed on
January 28, 2022, indicated father had contacted DCFS on
January 25, 2022, and acknowledged having monitored visits
twice per week. Father stated mother took the children out of
New York without his permission. Mother had been leaving the
children with him for days at a time despite her request for a
restraining order. Father claimed mother’s allegations in the
restraining order were untrue. He denied being part of a gang or
dealing drugs. Father confirmed mother’s mental illness, recent
hospitalizations and prior loss of custody of Isabella.
       Father reported mother had picked up the children from
his home on January 8, 2022, and was screaming in the streets
that father was a drug dealer. Afterwards, mother got in a
serious car accident with the children in the car. Mother’s
driver’s license was suspended because she did not have
insurance. Mother then went to a friend’s home and rented a U-
Haul. Father believed mother then left for California. Father
had been looking for the children for two weeks before calling
DCFS.
       At the January 28, 2022 hearing, the juvenile court
acknowledged possible jurisdictional issues under the Uniform
Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA)
(Fam. Code, § 3400 et seq.) and indicated it would contact the
court in New York. The court found a prima facie showing had
been made and ordered the children detained in foster care. It
also found father to be the presumed father of Jason.
Addendum report
       An addendum report was filed on February 16, 2022,
regarding another conversation with CPS social worker Matos,

                               6
who stated there were concerns with father due to his substance
abuse. The family law judge ordered father to submit to a hair
follicle test, and father subsequently shaved his head. The
displeased judge considered it a positive test. The judge declined
to grant father custody and ordered his visits be monitored.
       At the most recent custody hearing, father was enrolled at
an outpatient substance abuse program and had last tested
positive on a drug test in November 2021. Matos did not know
for which drug. Father told Matos the positive test was for
“benzos,” but Matos was unsure because she could not access the
records. Father also disclosed that he used to sell drugs. Mother
attended the same drug program but was terminated due to
noncompliance. Mother had been in touch with Matos after the
children were detained in California and stated she was not
planning on returning to New York.
       Matos expressed belief that father could care for the
children with support in place. PGM was a support for father but
was employed. When the DCFS social worker informed Matos
that father disclosed he had a prescription for oxycodone, Matos
responded that she had not been informed of this and reiterated,
“substance abuse has always been a concern.”
       DCFS interviewed father by telephone a second time on
February 15, 2022. Father had a medical marijuana card and
disclosed use of marijuana one or twice a week for PTSD, anxiety,
and pain in his knees, hands, back, and disc. Father claimed the
pain was due to physical work. He admitted a criminal history,
which included a 2013 possession of cocaine with intent to sell.
He completed a treatment program and a five-year probation.
Father was also arrested in 2018 when he was in a car with
mother that was pulled over due to a warrant for mother

                                7
concerning car theft. Father stated he loved mother and “took
the charge” for the marijuana found in the car.
      Other than marijuana, father admitted he was “caught up
with Xanax” when he was younger and still attended a support
group. Father stated he was currently attending a drug program
because of family court.
      Father denied being verbally abusive or violent with
mother. He admitted there was a protective order allowing him
supervised visitation, but claimed mother “didn’t care unless I
did something she didn’t like.” Father had no contact with
mother and did not seek contact; he wanted to have the children
placed with him in New York. Father said his brother and sister-
in-law were also willing to care for the children.
      Father acknowledged if he were to drug test that day he
would test positive for marijuana and oxycodone, which had been
prescribed for sleep, though he was tapering off oxycodone on a
“step-down” method. He offered to provide medical records if
needed. Father was in a treatment program he had started the
previous August or September, pursuant to an order by the
family law court, and was tested for drugs by a weekly mouth
swab.
      Father later provided copies of his oxycodone prescription
and medical marijuana card.
      The children remained placed in a foster home.
      The scheduled February 24, 2022 hearing was continued
for the UCCJEA issue to be addressed.
Jurisdiction/disposition report and additional reports
      The March 15, 2022 jurisdiction/disposition report included
additional interviews with mother and extended family.
      Mother continued to question father’s paternity, did not
want the children to return to New York, and did not want

                                8
Isabella to have telephone contact with father as he was not her
biological father. She maintained father was abusive and a drug
dealer.
       Maternal aunt, Ashley H., who lived in New York,
expressed concern about the children being placed with father
and described the paternal family as unsafe. She wished to have
the children placed with her.
       PGM was interviewed. She too wanted the children placed
with her. She confirmed father lived with her intermittently and
claimed mother made false allegations against her.
       In a March 15, 2022 addendum report, DCFS provided a
February 28, 2022 e-mail from father’s case manager at his drug
treatment program reflecting that father had been enrolled in the
treatment program since September 16, 2021; father had
prescriptions for oxycodone and marijuana; he tested positive for
cocaine on January 27, 2022, and had otherwise tested negative
for that drug; father consistently tested positive for marijuana,
opiates, oxycodone, noroxycodone, and oxymorphone; and father
was compliant with treatment and focused on regaining custody
of his son.
       Mother reiterated father was abusive. She stated she had
entered the same treatment program as father, but he was
“harassing” and “abusive” towards her and made false allegations
against her. Mother ended their relationship in July or
December 2021 because it was toxic. Mother stated father yelled
and behaved irrationally.4

4     The March 15, 2022 jurisdiction/disposition report
indicated DCFS had not yet completed its investigation into
Jason’s family heritage for the purposes of the Indian Child
Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and California’s
equivalent law (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224 et seq.).

                                9
       In a March 24, 2022 last minute information for the court,
father provided DCFS with documents from the family law case,
including a court order that Jason not be permanently removed
from New York while the disposition of the case was pending and
requiring mother to provide legal proof of paternity.
       A May 11, 2022 last minute information for the court
reflected father’s expression of frustration that the foster mother
was making it difficult for him to have his phone calls with Jason
by not complying with the written schedule.
       Father provided updated medical records, showing that he
was being seen for sleep apnea and lumbar disc disorder. Father
was on a low dose of Percocet for pain and had no side effects.
Father also submitted a December 27, 2021 certificate for
completion of parenting classes. A May 10, 2022 letter from
father’s case manager at his treatment program reported father
was compliant with the program’s rules, attending required
sessions and submitting to random weekly drug tests. Father
was re-assessing his past destructive behaviors and was focused
on healthy goals to make positive changes. Father had tested
negative for all mood altering substances within the past 90 days.
Father’s anticipated completion date for the program was June
2022.
       DCFS recommended against placing Jason with father due
to father’s use of prescription medication and history of substance
abuse. DCFS also expressed concern that parents had a history
of domestic violence, which they had failed to address.
Adjudication and disposition
       At the May 11, 2022 adjudication, the juvenile court
informed the parties the New York court was declining
jurisdiction. Father and mother appeared via Webex and were

                                10
represented by counsel. Mother pled no contest. After hearing
argument, the juvenile court sustained the amended petition.
       Prior to the disposition hearing, DCFS provided a last
minute information for the court indicating it was not
recommending that Jason be released to the care of father.
DCFS stated father “has a long-term substance abuse issue and
prior treatment and services failed to ameliorate his substance
abuse issues.” DCFS noted that even while attending treatment,
father continued to test positive for cocaine, opiates, and
marijuana.
       At the May 25, 2022 disposition hearing, the juvenile court
heard testimony from mother, Isabella’s father, and father.
Mother reiterated her concerns about Jason being placed with
father.
       Father testified that he lived with Jason and mother for the
first two and a half months after Jason was born. Mother was
then hospitalized several times, and father had Jason during
those periods. Father stated his visitation was monitored as
ordered by a restraining order, and PGM and paternal
grandfather monitored his visits. However, what was ordered for
visitation was not always what was followed; it was dependent on
what mother wanted, including father having the children
overnight. Father stated he was able to have Jason in his home
and was willing to have Isabella placed with him as well. Father
did not want Jason placed with Ashley H. because Isabella had
previously lived with her and was not treated well.
       Father’s counsel argued Jason and Isabella should be
placed in father’s care, or alternatively placement with father’s
brother should be ordered. Jason’s counsel joined DCFS in
asking that the child not be placed with either parent at that
time.

                                11
      The juvenile court declared Jason a dependent of the court,
removing him from the custody of father based on father’s
substance abuse. He was also removed from mother’s custody.
Jason was ordered suitably placed. The court also ordered family
reunification services and monitored visitation with Jason for
father. Assessments of the homes of maternal aunt and paternal
uncle and his wife were ordered.
      Father filed a timely notice of appeal.

                           DISCUSSION
I.    Applicable law and standard of review
      Section 361, subdivision (c)(1) permits the juvenile court to
remove a child from the physical custody of his parents if the
court finds by clear and convincing evidence that “[t]here is or
would be a substantial danger to the physical health, safety,
protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor if the
minor were returned home, and there are no reasonable means
by which the minor’s physical health can be protected without
removing the minor from the minor’s parent’s . . . physical
custody.”
      “In determining whether a child may be safely maintained
in the parent’s physical custody, the juvenile court may consider
the parent’s past conduct and current circumstances, and the
parent’s response to the conditions that gave rise to juvenile court
intervention.” (In re D.B. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 320, 332.) “The
parent need not be dangerous and the minor need not have been
actually harmed before removal is appropriate. The focus of the
statute is on averting harm to the child.” (In re T.V. (2013) 217
Cal.App.4th 126, 135-136.)
      “When reviewing a finding that a fact has been proved by
clear and convincing evidence, the question before the appellate

                                12
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.) In conducting our review, we must
“view the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing
party below and give appropriate deference to how the trier of
fact may have evaluated the credibility of witnesses, resolved
conflicts in the evidence, and drawn reasonable inferences from
the evidence.” (Id. at pp. 1011-1012.)
II.    Substantial evidence supported the juvenile court’s
       decision that there existed a substantial danger to
       Jason if placed in father’s custody
       Father is not challenging the jurisdictional findings in this
case, which included allegations that father has a history of
substance abuse, including Xanax and cocaine, and is a current
abuser of oxycodone, marijuana and cocaine, rendering father
incapable of caring for the child. However, father challenges the
juvenile court’s dispositional order removing Jason from his
custody.5
       Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s decision
that returning Jason to father’s custody would create a

5      Father cites In re James T. (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 58 as an
example of a case in which a jurisdictional order was affirmed but
the dispositional order reversed. Father highlights language in
the case suggesting that section 361 “embodies legislative
solicitude for parental rights.” (James T., at p. 66.) The James T.
court found the facts of that case fell “far short of the statutorily
defined cases justifying state intervention to sever, if even
temporarily, the parent-child relationship.” (Id. at p. 65.) As set
forth below, the present matter is factually distinguishable, and
the evidence before the juvenile court here supports the removal
order.

                                 13
substantial risk of harm to the child. Father has a long-standing
substance abuse history. He admitted being “caught up with
Xanax” when he was younger and, despite attending a group for
that drug use, continued to use drugs. Father has a criminal
history that included a 2013 possession with intent to sell
cocaine, for which he completed a treatment program and five-
year probation. Despite completing those programs, he was
arrested in 2018 after law enforcement found marijuana in a car
where mother and father were present. As recently as
January 2022, father tested positive for cocaine—the same drug
involved in his 2013 arrest. Father continues to use marijuana
and oxycodone to address pain despite his history of drug use and
treatment. The New York CPS social worker indicated
“substance abuse has always been a concern” with father. This
history shows that despite various treatments, father continued
to engage in drug use. Given father’s long history of drug use,
and continuing use of drugs, the juvenile court did not err in
determining that there was a substantial risk to Jason if placed
in father’s care.
      Father argues that he was participating in a substance
abuse treatment program at the time of the proceedings and was
compliant with the program. However, father had previously
completed drug treatment programs and, despite completing
those programs, continued to use drugs. Father also argues that
he lives with PGM and was able to receive Jason at the home of
PGM. Father has cared for Jason without mother’s help when
mother was subjected to multiple psychiatric hospitalizations.
After mother sought a restraining order against him, father
continued to have monitored visits with the children. However,
father states he cared for the children anytime mother wanted
him to, including overnight visits.

                               14
       Father’s history of caring for the children does not
undermine the juvenile court’s finding that father’s drug use
placed Jason at substantial risk for future harm. “‘The court
need not wait until a child is seriously abused or injured to . . .
take the steps necessary to protect the child.’” (In re I.J. (2013)
56 Cal.4th 766, 773.) Given father’s long history of substance
abuse and his failure to overcome the problem through various
treatments, the juvenile court did not err in finding a substantial
risk to Jason if placed in father’s custody.
       Father cites In re Jasmine G. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 282,
288-289 (Jasmine G.), as an example of a case in which the
evidence supporting a removal order was too speculative to
support such action. Jasmine G. involved corporal punishment of
a teenager by parents who were “employed, ‘law-abiding citizens’
with no alcohol or drug dependencies and no prior encounters
with the juvenile dependency system.” (Id. at p. 285.) In
reversing the juvenile court’s decision not to return the child to
her parents, the Jasmine G. court noted, “The case before us is
remarkable for the clear and convincing evidence that it was safe
to return Jasmine to either of her parent’s homes.” (Id. at
p. 288.) Specifically, both parents had “forsworn corporal
punishment of teenagers. Both expressed remorse for having
used corporal punishment on Jasmine. Both had attended
parenting classes, and both had undergone therapy to improve
their parenting skills. Jasmine had no fear of either.” (Id. at
pp. 288-289.) In fact, “Jasmine herself wanted to go home.” (Id.
at p. 289.)
       The present matter is distinguishable. Father’s criminal
history and admitted history of drug use create a substantial risk
of harm to Jason, who is not a teenager but a child of tender
years. (In re Christopher R. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1219

                                15
[children six years old or younger are considered children of
“‘tender years’”].) In dependency law, when a child of tender
years is involved, a 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.’” (Ibid.)
Father has not challenged the jurisdictional finding that his drug
use places Jason at substantial risk of harm. Further, unlike the
parents in Jasmine G., father has not shown he has
acknowledged and overcome the issues leading to Jason’s
dependency.

                         DISPOSITION
      The order is affirmed.

                                     ___________________________
                                     CHAVEZ, J.

We concur:

_______________________________
ASHMANN-GERST, Acting P. J.

_______________________________
HOFFSTADT, J.

                                16