Court Opinion

ID: 9929160
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-01 21:02:19.633074+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:05:42.776569
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/1/24 In re L.J. CA2/8
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT
In re L.J., a Person Coming                                    B324863
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
                                                               (Los Angeles County
LOS ANGELES COUNTY                                             Super. Ct. No. 22CCJP01883A)
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,

         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.

M.J. et al.,

         Defendants and Appellants.

      APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County. Jean M. Nelson, Judge. Affirmed.
      John L. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant M.J.
      Jamie A. Moran, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant S.B.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Jessica S. Mitchell, Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                    _______________________
      M.J. (Mother) challenges the jurisdictional findings and
dispositional orders concerning her daughter L.J., while S.B.
(Father) appeals the order removing L.J. from his custody. We
affirm.
      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
I.    Initial Investigation and Dependency Petition
      L.J., born in 2015, came to the attention of the Department
of Children and Family Services (DCFS) on May 2, 2022, when
Father left L.J. with her maternal grandfather and maternal
step-grandmother (collectively, maternal grandparents), without
warning and without clothing, money, or food. On or about May
4, 2022, Father had a violent crisis at the home of the paternal
grandmother. Police found him nude under a blanket, and
covered with rubbing alcohol and printer ink; he appeared to
have been eating the ink and drinking the alcohol. He shattered
windows, threw items out of a window, and attempted to throw
the paternal grandmother out of a window. Father was
uncooperative with the police and resisted arrest. He was taken
to a hospital on a psychiatric hold under Welfare and Institutions
Code1 section 5150.
      On May 5, 2022, Father entered an inpatient recovery
center. Father claimed he was not manic, he did not have mental
health issues, and he was not taking medication; however, he had
experienced a substance abuse issue for some time. He said he
had been using drugs since “well before” he was a teenager.
Father had used marijuana and alcohol as a teenager, and for the

1     All undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare
and Institutions Code.

                                2
past six months he had been using methamphetamine. He said
his family was aware of his drug use.
        Father reported he had had custody of L.J. for two years.
He acknowledged repeatedly taking L.J. to the maternal
grandparents and then taking her back, saying he was making
up his mind what to do. He said he now knew it was best for the
maternal grandparents to take care of L.J., and he was in the
process of giving them custody of her through the courts. Father
said that whether or not he was using substances, and even when
he left his rehabilitation program, he wanted L.J. to stay with the
maternal grandparents, as it was in her best interest.
        The maternal step-grandmother reported this was not the
first time Father had left L.J. with them. In October 2020,
Father brought L.J. to stay the night with them and then he
extended her stay. They did not hear from him again until
Easter 2021, when he returned, took L.J. out of school, and
terminated her counseling. According to the maternal step-
grandmother, L.J. was an “emotional mess” because Father drops
her off and then returns whenever he feels like it.
        According to the maternal step-grandmother, on April 25,
2022, Father gave L.J. to them with a signed letter giving them
guardianship of her. But on the morning of April 27, 2022, L.J.’s
first day of school, Father wanted her back. According to the
maternal step-grandmother, they persuaded Father to let her go
to school, but the next day, Father rang their doorbell at 5:30
a.m. and demanded L.J. This was not unusual for Father, who
continued this back and forth over the next several days.
        The maternal step-grandmother said Mother had admitted
she and Father used to use drugs together as teenagers; they
ordered synthetic drugs online. The maternal step-grandmother

                                3
said Mother was addicted to pills and alcohol, and she telephoned
a year ago to say she had overdosed.
       On May 5, 2022, L.J. told DCFS she had last seen Mother
in person two years earlier and that Mother did not call her very
often. L.J. said she went back and forth between her maternal
grandparents and Father. L.J. said she knew Father drank
alcohol because there was a plastic bag filled with metal bottles
in his room. She said she saw Father and a person she knew as
his “broman” drinking something they said was illegal. Father
drank two bottles and his friend drank four.
       L.J. said Father acted weird sometimes. He would put his
chin down and start to get “big eyes.” When he had big eyes, he
argued with everyone, and her paternal grandmother would call
on her paternal grandfather to handle Father. Sometimes big
eyes lasted for two straight days. This happened monthly. L.J.
said she always knew when Father was going to take her to the
maternal grandparents because he had big eyes. By the time
they made the long drive to the maternal grandparents’ home,
Father would not have big eyes anymore.
       On May 5, 2022, the maternal grandfather told DCFS he no
longer spoke to Mother, who was an addict. He said Father had
been around since Mother was 14, and Mother and Father used
drugs together when Mother was a teenager. The maternal
grandfather did not believe Father could care for L.J. and
expressed concern about the effect on her of Father constantly
moving her back and forth.
       On May 6, 2022, Father told DCFS that he received full
custody of L.J. after Mother’s boyfriend abused L.J. in 2019. L.J.
and Mother had supervised visits by telephone, but according to
Father, Mother put in little effort and sometimes said she was

                                4
busy at work when they called. Father did not know if Mother
was currently sober.
      Father disputed L.J.’s report that the paternal grandfather
had to come over to handle him, stating that this only happened
once because he was “getting high on Noz” from balloons. Father
said that “Noz” is “not a big thing, practically not illegal, because
someone would actually need to see you puffing from the balloon.”
      Father said he had abused marijuana and alcohol as a
teenager, he had used the worst drugs, and he had hurt his
family. He wanted to stop using drugs and was ready for
rehabilitation, which would take two months.
      On May 10, 2022, Mother told DCFS she started dating
Father when she was 11 years old, and she was 16 or 17 years old
when L.J. was born. Mother said she began to use drugs at age
14 when Father put a chemical he ordered online into her tea,
and after she stopped drinking Father’s tea she started smoking
“spice.”
      Mother said she began experiencing post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD) in 2019 when her children were removed from
her custody. Mother said she became homeless and began using
drugs in 2020. Her drug of choice was heroin. Mother stated she
moved to North Dakota to try to stop using drugs; she chose
North Dakota because her biological mother, an “extreme
alcoholic,” was there. According to Mother, in April 2021 she
overdosed and “died for five minutes” before being revived, and
since then she had been sober. She said she was taking classes
and obtaining outpatient care.
      Mother reported childhood trauma, including sexual abuse
and physical abuse by relatives. She said she was seeing a
psychiatrist and taking prescription medication nightly for her

                                 5
severe PTSD and anxiety. Mother was not seeing a therapist;
she did not like therapy.
       Mother had failed to reunify with another child, L.J.’s half-
sibling. She claimed not to know why they had not reunified, as
she had completed all her classes and had the certificates to
prove it. She said “they” wanted her to have a psychological
evaluation, which she did not do.
       Mother felt L.J. would be better off living with her than
with the maternal grandparents and said L.J. wanted to live with
her. Mother said she had learned a lot from parenting classes,
and she could be present for L.J. emotionally, physically, and
financially. She had a better relationship with L.J. now. When
the social worker said Mother was reported to have minimal
contact with L.J., Mother claimed she called “all the time” to talk
to L.J. but Father did not answer her calls.
       Mother described Father and the maternal grandparents as
a “terrible fucking bunch.” She alleged the maternal step-
grandmother used pills. She claimed the maternal grandfather
had Mother hospitalized for cutting and self-harm in 2016 and
then tried to keep L.J. Mother believed Father was selling drugs
on an online auction website. She said Father filed a false report
alleging physical abuse against her (now ex-)boyfriend in 2019.
Mother alleged Father had physically, sexually, and verbally
abused L.J. Mother thought Father was psychotic and possibly
schizophrenic; he heard voices telling him the paternal great-
grandmother was evil and possessed. She said for a time Father
and L.J. were living in a tent and washing their clothes with a
water hose. Mother claimed from 2017 to 2019, she repeatedly
tried to take Father to court due to her concerns, but each time
she was denied.

                                 6
      As for Father’s family, Mother alleged the paternal
grandfather was a severe alcoholic and the paternal great-
grandfather had sexually abused a child.
      On May 16, 2022, DCFS filed a petition under section 300,
subdivision (b)(1), alleging that (1) Father had a history of
substance abuse and currently abused methamphetamine,
nitrous oxide, alcohol, and illicit substances, rendering him
unable to provide regular supervision to L.J., and Mother failed
to protect L.J. from Father’s substance abuse; (2) Mother had a
history of substance abuse, including heroin and prescription
medication, which rendered her unable to provide regular care
and supervision to L.J.; (3) Father had mental and emotional
problems, including erratic and aggressive behaviors, that
endangered L.J.; and (4) Mother had mental and emotional
problems, including PTSD, anxiety, and self-harming behavior;
she had been hospitalized for mental health issues and had
refused to seek mental health treatment; and her mental health
issues rendered her incapable of providing L.J. with regular care
and supervision and placed L.J. at risk of serious physical harm.
II.   Pre-Adjudication Investigation
      On June 27, 2022, Mother told DCFS that the allegations
against her were false and she was not happy that her history
was being used against her. Mother said she had struggled with
mental health issues since she was 13 years old, when she was
diagnosed with bipolar disorder, anxiety, and depression. She
had been in counseling and on psychiatric medication since she
was a child, and she had taken a number of different
psychoactive medications. According to Mother, she had been
hospitalized for psychiatric issues at the ages of 13 and 16 and
she blamed Father for her hospitalizations, saying he made false

                                7
reports. Mother said she had engaged in self-harming behavior
when she was 18 years old but no longer.
       Mother denied psychiatric hospitalizations as an adult and
said she had “been emotionally stable for a long time now.”
Mother said her current diagnoses were severe PTSD, anxiety,
and depression. She was taking three medications under the
supervision of a psychiatrist and her primary care physician, and
she followed her medication regimen. She was considering
hypnotherapy to address her trauma and was “looking into
connecting” with a mental health provider for counseling.
       Mother maintained she was sober and capable of providing
care and supervision to L.J. Mother reported that in high school,
she and Father took experimental drugs. She denied they used
“hard core” drugs. Mother said she had been prescribed opiates
for spinal pain in 2018. She had not been overusing them, but
when DCFS got involved and removed the children, “things went
downhill.” Mother said she “turned to drugs,” and began using
other drugs “to stop feeling shitty.” She admitted using heroin
and opiates but said she had been sober for more than one year.
According to Mother, on April 18, 2021, two days after she moved
to North Dakota, she overdosed on heroin and “died for
10 minutes” before being revived. She had been sober since.
When asked if she had attended any program to get sober,
Mother said no; she quit on her own. Mother said she attended
Alcoholics Anonymous meetings weekly. She told DCFS she was
willing to drug test and she planned on starting substance abuse
counseling “soon.”
       Mother reported that when she was a teenager, Father had
a severe drug problem. He used chemicals he ordered online, and
she took them too. Mother claimed she reported Father’s

                                8
substance abuse issues to DCFS, but DCFS did nothing. Mother
said Father had always had mental problems and he had a very
bad anger problem, and she had always been “screaming about
this” to DCFS.
       Mother said she lived alone in North Dakota near her
biological mother, but they did not get along due to her mother’s
alcoholism. Mother said she had no support system; the only
person who had supported her was her grandmother, who died in
2020. Mother did not undergo grief therapy when her
grandmother died but told DCFS she had done “lots of therapy”
throughout her life.
       On June 27, 2022, DCFS spoke with Father, who said he
had been in his recovery program for seven weeks and would be
discharged in July 2022. Father said he was there voluntarily
and was taking parenting, anger management, and domestic
violence classes. He drug tested weekly and all tests had been
negative. Father said he joined the rehabilitation program
prophylactically, to avoid any similar situations in the future. He
felt he needed professional help to get a better sense of who he is
and to develop coping skills. He said he was taking his classes
and recovery seriously and wanted to reunify with L.J. Father
intended to stay away from all substances, including marijuana
and alcohol, when he left the program.
       Father said that throughout his life he had used marijuana
and alcohol socially, once or twice per month. He disputed
whether nitrous oxide should be considered a drug. Father
denied he was a methamphetamine abuser, contending he only
used it once, under peer pressure, on May 5, 2022. Father said
the methamphetamine made him anxious and panicky; he was
yelling and felt like he was going to have a heart attack. At his

                                9
request his mother called 911 because he “wasn’t feeling well.”
At the hospital he was given medication and slept; when he woke
up he felt better and asked to be referred to treatment. However,
Father said he did not have a substance abuse problem, he
denied needing substance abuse treatment, and he said he went
to treatment “to prevent [himself] from getting into something
else later.”
       Father denied knowing whether he was placed on a
psychiatric hold when hospitalized and said he had no prior
record of psychiatric hospitalizations. Father denied any ongoing
mental health issues and claimed not to understand how the
mental health allegation in the petition related to him. He said,
“I was panicking. I just didn’t feel good. I didn’t react well to the
[methamphetamine]. I’ve never had any other outbreaks. I don’t
see the mental aggressive past. The only incident has been on
5/5/22. Besides that, I’ve been a good person. I go to school, I go
to work. I am not an addict. I used something that didn’t react
well with me.”
       Father said when he met Mother she used to cut herself.
When they were together, Mother told him she was schizophrenic
and bipolar and was taking medication. Father thought Mother
had PTSD and believed she took Xanax for anxiety.
       Father told DCFS that when L.J. was three years old DCFS
became involved with the family because Mother’s boyfriend
physically abused L.J. Mother did not complete her court-
ordered classes and did not leave her boyfriend, and Father was
granted physical custody of L.J. He said Mother moved to North
Dakota one month later.

                                 10
       Father’s case manager confirmed his participation in
programs, negative drug tests, and anticipated program
completion date.
       The maternal grandparents told DCFS they had known
Father for more than seven years, and they knew about his
substance abuse problems. The maternal grandfather said
Mother had been an addict for many years, although he was not
sure how she was doing presently. The maternal grandfather
reported that Mother’s biological mother, an alcoholic, was
Mother’s only support in North Dakota.
       In a July 6, 2022 conversation with DCFS, L.J. said she did
not want to live with Father because he was often angry at her.
She said she had seen Father drink alcohol, and after drinking,
he “acts crazy, like scratching people and fighting people.” L.J.
reported Father had not scratched her but he had scratched the
paternal grandparents. According to L.J., one day she saw
alcohol in Father’s room; Father then began to act crazy and
scratched his parents. L.J. stayed with her paternal grandfather
for six months because Father “was still acting crazy.”
       L.J. told DCFS that on her seventh birthday, Father called
her by Mother’s name and refused to believe her when she said
who she was. When the paternal grandmother came to pick up
L.J., Father refused and said they would stay in the car. He also
called the paternal grandmother by Mother’s name.
       L.J. said she did not know much about Mother’s mental
health but that things seemed okay when she spoke to Mother on
the phone. L.J. did not know if Mother abused substances, but
noted that during phone visits Mother did not “act crazy like
[D]ad.” L.J. told DCFS Mother did not scare or upset her like
Father did.

                                11
       DCFS reported the family had a prior dependency case in
2019. The case arose from a substantiated referral alleging that
Mother’s boyfriend abused L.J., Mother neglected L.J. and L.J.’s
half-sibling, and Mother and her boyfriend engaged in physical
altercations in L.J.’s presence. According to the referral, Mother
did not believe L.J.’s report of abuse and denied her boyfriend
had abused L.J. even after being informed she had bruises
suggesting child abuse. Mother was unwilling to leave her
boyfriend.
       Mother claimed the earlier dependency case began when
she was accused of physically abusing L.J., but then, when DCFS
realized that L.J. had been bruised while in Father’s care, DCFS
“switched the issue” to Mother’s psychiatric problems. She
claimed Father made a false allegation of physical abuse against
her boyfriend and that Father had physically, sexually, and
verbally abused L.J.
       In the prior case the juvenile court found true allegations
that the boyfriend physically abused L.J., Mother knew or
reasonably should have known about the abuse and failed to
protect L.J., Mother had a history of exposing L.J. to acts of
domestic violence with her boyfriend, and Mother had “an
untreated mental illness which impairs her ability to provide
adequate care and supervision for the child, [L.J.], in that
[Mother] has been diagnosed with schizophrenia and is not
compliant with her medication regimen.” Ultimately, the court
terminated jurisdiction over L.J. and issued a juvenile custody
order giving Father sole physical and joint legal custody of L.J.
Mother said she had complied with court orders, but the court’s
order restricted her to supervised visits because she did not

                                12
complete individual counseling, parenting classes, and a domestic
violence program for offenders.
       Mother confirmed the dependency case involving L.J.’s
half-sibling was based on the “same reasons and same report.”
Mother said she lost custody of this child because she had not left
her boyfriend, but Father said she failed to reunify because she
did not follow through on her programs. L.J.’s half-sibling was
placed with the maternal grandparents, who were adopting her.
       DCFS concluded both parents had ongoing unresolved
issues and lengthy histories of substance abuse and mental
health problems. DCFS did not believe Father had gained
insight into his issues during his 60-day treatment program and
noted that his substance abuse problems appeared to have
contributed to his mental health problems, as evidenced by his
recent hospitalization. DCFS wanted Father to take
responsibility and continue to address the issues that brought the
family to DCFS’s attention. DCFS recommended Mother and
Father receive monitored visitation and reunification services.
III.   Jurisdiction and Disposition
       At the jurisdictional hearing on July 13, 2022, Father
submitted certificates of completion of a substance abuse
program and classes on parenting, anger management, and
domestic violence; an employment reference letter from the
treatment program; and reports from negative drug tests
between May through July 2022.
       The juvenile court struck the allegation that Father had
mental problems that rendered him incapable of providing care to
L.J.; sustained the substance abuse claim as to Father as
amended to remove language alleging Mother failed to protect

                                13
L.J.; and sustained as pleaded the substance abuse and mental
health allegations concerning Mother.
       In September 2022, DCFS reported the following
information to the juvenile court: Mother was not testing for
drugs or alcohol but said her doctor would arrange it. Mother
updated DCFS on her psychiatric medications and provided her
medical marijuana card. Mother’s doctor confirmed Mother’s
medications and medical marijuana card and said she could start
randomly testing Mother for drugs and alcohol. Father had
seven negative drug tests in July and August 2022 and one no-
show. He had documented his Alcoholics Anonymous attendance
in July and August 2022.
       In October 2022, DCFS advised the court that Father had
tested negative for drugs five more times and continued to attend
Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. DCFS had not received any
updates on Mother’s progress from her psychiatrist despite
leaving many messages for her.
       At the dispositional hearing on October 10, 2022, Mother
was asked her position on removing L.J. from parental custody.
Mother’s counsel said, “Your Honor, submitted as to removal.
The mother believes that the minor is suitably placed. Her only
real request at the moment is just for her visitation to continue.”
Father requested L.J. be released to him.
       As for the parents’ case plan, Mother’s counsel argued it
was not necessary for her to complete a full drug and alcohol
program. Counsel said, “Looking at the sustained petition,
particularly the substance abuse and how long ago that was, I
just don’t think it is really necessary for Mother to do a whole
drug or alcohol program. I don’t have an objection to counseling,
but again, it seems that the Department is treating Mother as,

                                14
you know, she is still in her first case back in a different
jurisdiction, and it is pretty clear that Mother has been sober for
quite some time. To tell her to get into a full program . . . in
North Dakota based on the evidence that was in the jurisdiction
report, Your Honor, I just don’t think that is enough. So, again,
no objection to testing, no objection to individual counseling, but
as to the rest of the case plan, Your Honor, I would object.”
       The court declared L.J. a dependent child, removed her
from her parents’ custody, and ordered monitored visitation and
reunification services. Mother and Father were ordered to
undergo a full drug/alcohol program with aftercare and weekly
drug and alcohol testing; a parenting course; individual
counseling on case issues, child protection, the effect on children
of untreated mental health concerns and substance abuse,
healthy relationships, and co-parenting; and mental health
counseling. Both parents appeal.
                          DISCUSSION
I.    Jurisdictional Findings
       Mother argues the jurisdictional findings against her must
be vacated because they were premised on an improper allocation
of the burden of proof and insufficient evidence. DCFS argues
Mother’s challenge to the jurisdictional findings is non-justiciable
because L.J. will remain a dependent child of the juvenile court
based on the findings against Father that he has not appealed.
DCFS contends Mother consented to removal at disposition and
therefore there are no identified adverse consequences to the
jurisdictional findings that would warrant the findings’ review.
In an abundance of caution, we address Mother’s claims on the
merits.

                                 15
      A.    Burden of Proof
       Mother argues the juvenile court erroneously placed the
burden of proof on her at the jurisdictional hearing and required
her to prove the absence of risk to L.J. Mother’s argument is
based on two comments made by the court while describing its
reasoning for finding the substance abuse and mental health
issue allegations true. The court said it found the substance
abuse allegation true as amended for the reasons argued by L.J.’s
counsel “and Mother’s own statements indicating that once she
lost custody in the prior case, she did turn to drugs. There is not
clear evidence that she has fully addressed her substance abuse
problem, and she has a history of abusing very serious drugs,
including heroin. And this [b-2] count ties to her mental health
problems in that she appears to turn to substances when her
mental [health] problems become aggravated.” When discussing
the mental health allegation, the court commented, “Mother
acknowledges that she has turned to substances because of her
mental health problems and we don’t have sufficient evidence
here that Mother is fully addressing her mental health problems,
as she claims.”
       While it is beyond question that Mother did not bear the
burden of proof at the jurisdictional hearing (In re I.J. (2013)
56 Cal.4th 766, 773), we do not conceive it to be a misallocation of
the burden of proof for the juvenile court to observe that Mother’s
assertions that her drug and mental health problems were all
relegated to the past had not been substantiated by DCFS’s
investigation. Mother had struggled with mental health issues
for more than half her life. At age 13 she was diagnosed with
bipolar disorder, anxiety, and depression. Mother was twice
hospitalized for psychiatric issues as a teenager, and she had

                                16
engaged in self-harm. In 2019 or 2020 L.J. and her half-sibling
became dependents of the juvenile court in part because of
Mother’s untreated schizophrenia and refusal to comply with her
medication regimen. However, Mother denied the impact her
untreated mental health issues had on her children, claiming
DCFS had “switched the issue” in the prior dependency
proceedings to her psychiatric problems when their allegation she
had committed child abuse did not pan out. In that prior case,
Mother had refused to undergo a psychiatric evaluation and was
limited to supervised visitation with L.J. because she failed to
complete her programs, but she claimed she had done all the
court asked and did not know why she failed to reunify. Despite
longstanding, unresolved mental health problems that had led to
dependency jurisdiction and losing custody of her children,
Mother advised DCFS she had “been emotionally stable for a long
time now.”
       Mother had also engaged in long-term substance abuse. At
age 14 she took experimental drugs with Father, and later she
began smoking “spice.” The maternal grandparents confirmed
Mother used drugs as a teenager, and the maternal step-
grandmother reported Mother was addicted to pills and alcohol.
Mother admitted turning to drugs to make herself feel better
when her children were removed from her custody. She had used
heroin and opiates. She moved to North Dakota in the hope of
breaking her drug addiction, but two days after she arrived, she
overdosed on heroin. Mother claimed she was now sober and she
had achieved sobriety without attending a substance abuse
program or drug counseling. She said she was willing to drug
test, but she never tested. She told DCFS she planned to enroll
in substance abuse counseling “soon,” but the record does not

                               17
show she ever did. In this factual context, we do not believe the
court improperly shifted the burden of proof at the jurisdictional
hearing by observing there was no basis to conclude Mother’s
chronic issues were now all in her past as she had represented to
DCFS.
      B.    Sufficiency of the Evidence
       Section 300, subdivision (b)(1) provides that the court may
exercise jurisdiction over a child who has suffered, or there is a
substantial risk the child will suffer, serious physical harm or
illness as a result of the failure of the parent adequately to
supervise or protect the child, or to provide regular care for the
child due to the parent’s mental illness or substance abuse.
Jurisdictional findings are reviewed for substantial evidence and
are affirmed when there is reasonable, credible evidence of solid
value to support them. (In re Jonathan B. (2015)
235 Cal.App.4th 115, 119.) “ ‘ “[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.”
[Citation.] “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].” ’ ” ’ ” (In re I.J., supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 773.) “[W]e
do not consider whether there is evidence from which the juvenile
court could have drawn a different conclusion but whether there

                                  18
is substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the court
did draw.” (In re M.R. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 101, 108.)
       Mother challenges the exercise of jurisdiction on the basis
of her mental and emotional health problems, relying on In re
James R. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 129, abrogated on a different
ground in In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 629; In re David M.
(2005) 134 Cal.4th 822, abrogated on a different ground in In re
R.T.,at p. 629; and In re Joaquin C. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 537 for
the proposition that a parent’s mental health problem is not
alone enough for dependency jurisdiction; it must present a
current risk of harm to the child. This principle is
unquestionably true, but that is not the situation presented here.
Mother had recently been proven to present a risk to her children
due to her mental health issues. She claims on appeal that there
is no indication the mental health allegation was found true in
the prior dependency case, but the jurisdictional/dispositional
report states, “The following petition was sustained:” and then
lists four counts, one of which is the mental health allegation.
Mother, whose mental and emotional health problems had
recently been found to place her children at risk of serious
physical harm, had refused to undergo psychological assessment,
had turned to abusing heroin when her mental health problems
led to her losing custody of her children, had failed to complete
court-ordered counseling and treatment and therefore had failed
to reunify with her children, would not acknowledge that her
mental health problems had led to her children’s dependency and
acted as though her mental health problems had been a pretext
in the prior case, and insisted she had been emotionally stable for
a long time despite all the evidence to the contrary. “One cannot
correct a problem one fails to acknowledge.” (In re Gabriel K.

                                19
(2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 188, 197.) Given Mother’s longtime
mental health issues; the interplay of her mental health issues
and abuse of heroin; her denial that her mental health problems
had created a risk of serious physical harm to her children; and
her wide-ranging denial and persistent blaming of others, there
was substantial evidence from which the court could infer there
was a substantial risk Mother would again fail to protect L.J.
The evidence was sufficient to support the findings against
Mother under section 300, subdivision (b)(1) on this ground, and
we therefore need not consider the sufficiency of the evidence to
support jurisdiction based on Mother’s substance abuse. (In re
J.L. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1429, 1435 [when one basis for
jurisdiction is supported by substantial evidence, court does not
need to consider sufficiency of evidence to support other bases].)
II.   Removal Order
       Both parents challenge the removal of L.J .from their
custody. Children may not be removed from parental custody
unless there is clear and convincing evidence of a substantial
danger to their physical health, safety, protection or physical or
emotional well-being and there are no reasonable means by
which they can be protected without removal. (§ 361,
subd. (c)(1).) “A removal order is proper if based on proof of
parental inability to provide proper care for the child and proof of
a potential detriment to the child if he or she remains with the
parent. [Citation.] ‘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.’ [Citation.] The court may consider a parent’s past conduct
as well as present circumstances.” (In re N.M. (2011)
197 Cal.App.4th 159, 169–170, disapproved on other grounds by

                                20
Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1011–1012.)
Removal may not be based solely on past abuse; it requires an
“ongoing or future danger” to the child. (In re A.E. (2014)
228 Cal.App.4th 820, 826.)
      A removal order is reviewed for substantial evidence. (In re
Hailey T. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 139, 146.) “When reviewing a
finding that a fact has been proved by clear and convincing
evidence, the 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. In conducting its review, the court 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.” (Conservatorship of O.B., supra, 9 Cal.5th at
pp. 1011–1012.)
      A.    Removal from Mother
      At disposition, when asked her position on the question of
removal, Mother agreed L.J. was suitably placed with the
maternal grandparents, requested continued visitation, and then
submitted. We are aware that a claim of insufficient evidence to
support a dispositional order in a dependency matter generally is
not forfeited even if not raised below (In re R.V. (2012)
208 Cal.App.4th 837, 848). However, Mother did not simply fail
to contest a dispositional order; she agreed to her child’s
placement out of her custody. Mother may not now argue
removal was inappropriate. (In re N.S. (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th
816, 840 [party forfeits the right to challenge a ruling on appeal
by agreeing to it; mother’s express agreement at trial that the

                                21
juvenile court was not required to order a particular permanent
plan forfeited the right to claim on appeal that the court was
required to order that plan]; In re A.S. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th
131, 151 [parents forfeited their right to claim on appeal that the
court improperly limited hearing’s scope by expressly agreeing to
the scope of hearing].)
      Mother next appears to argue that because she agreed at
disposition that L.J. was suitably placed with the maternal
grandparents, there was no basis for removal—in other words,
because Mother did not oppose L.J.’s removal, removal was not
appropriate.
      This is not the legal standard for removal. (See § 361,
subd. (c)(1).) We are unaware of any legal authority supporting
Mother’s argument, and the authorities on which she relies are
inapposite. First, Mother quotes language in In re Isayah C.
(2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 684 stating that a parent may retain legal
custody of a child while that child is temporarily cared for by a
third party. The Isayah C. court was considering whether a
nonoffending parent’s plan to send his child to stay with relatives
during a brief incarceration was a sufficient showing of detriment
under section 361.2, subdivision (a) to permit the court to deny
placement to that nonoffending parent. (Isayah C., at pp. 699–
700.) Mother is not a nonoffending noncustodial parent
requesting custody of her child, nor did she send L.J. to the
maternal grandparents—DCFS detained L.J. before the petition
was filed, and at the detention hearing the court ordered
continued detention pursuant to section 319 and gave DCFS
discretion to release her to relatives.

                                22
       Next, Mother quotes a passage from In re Rocco M. (1991)
1 Cal.App.4th 814, 824, abrogated on a different ground in In re
R.T., supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 629: “[T]he fact that a child has been
left with other caretakers will not warrant a finding of
dependency if the child receives good care.” L.J. was not found to
be a dependent child because she was left with other caretakers,
nor did Mother leave her with the maternal grandparents; and In
re Rocco M. involved a challenge to jurisdictional findings, not a
dispositional order. (In re Rocco M., at p. 826.) Neither case has
any application here. Mother has not established error in the
juvenile court’s removal order.
      B.    Removal from Father
      Father argues clear and convincing evidence did not
support removing L.J. from his custody. He recites the many
positive steps he had taken and the progress that he made after
L.J. was removed from his care. He contends the court erred in
removing L.J. from his custody because DCFS failed to prove
there were no reasonable means by which she could be protected
short of removing her. Specifically, he contends L.J. could have
been returned safely to him on the condition that he continue to
participate in services, stay in touch with social workers, and
reside with relatives.
      Father fails to demonstrate any of these conditions would
have alleviated the concerns for L.J.’s safety. Initially, in May
2022, Father admitted he had used drugs since “well before” he
was a teenager, abused marijuana and alcohol, got high on
nitrous oxide, and used methamphetamine for the previous six
months. But then in June 2022, having nearly completed his
treatment program, Father insisted he did not have a substance
abuse problem. He told DCFS he only used marijuana and

                                23
alcohol once or twice per month, he disputed whether nitrous
oxide should be considered a drug, and he claimed he had only
used methamphetamine once, under pressure. Father denied
needing substance abuse treatment and said he entered the
rehabilitation program as a prophylactic measure.
       Father also dramatically minimized the severity of his
aggression when under the influence. Downplaying the May
2022 incident, Father said the methamphetamine “didn’t work
well” for him and made him feel panicky and like he was going to
have a heart attack, so he directed his mother to call 911. In
reality, Father was breaking windows and possessions in his
mother’s home, tried to throw his mother out a window,
consumed rubbing alcohol and ink, and was taken away by police
on a section 5150 hold as a danger to himself and others. Father
denied a history of aggressive behavior or any incidents other
than the one that led to his hospitalization, but L.J. described
Father acting aggressively and scratching people when he
ingested substances and got “big eyes.”
       In light of Father’s denial of his substance abuse problem,
his rationalization of drug use and minimization of his drug-
fueled violence, all of which occurred despite his participation in
an inpatient treatment program and contact with social workers,
we cannot conclude that ordering him to continue to participate
in services and stay in touch with social workers would have been
sufficient to keep L.J. safe in his custody. Moreover, living with
relatives would not ensure L.J.’s safety, because Father was
violent toward family when he was high: L.J. described Father
scratching the paternal grandparents when he drank, and Father
tried to defenestrate his mother during his methamphetamine-
fueled rampage in May 2022. The risk Father posed when using

                                24
substances, combined with his denial and minimization, made
less drastic solutions short of removal insufficient to protect L.J.
Based on the record and taking into account the clear and
convincing burden of proof required for removal (see
Conservatorship of O.B., supra, 9 Cal.5th at pp. 1011–1012), we
conclude substantial evidence supports the court’s order
removing L.J. from Father’s custody.
III.   Mother’s Drug Treatment and Testing Order
       Mother contends the order requiring her to participate in a
full drug/alcohol treatment program with aftercare and drug
testing must be reversed because there was no substantial
evidence she was abusing drugs or had a substance abuse
problem negatively impacting her parenting.
       Mother consented to a drug testing requirement at the
disposition hearing, so she may not now argue against it. (In re
N.S., supra, 55 Cal.App.5th at p. 840.) As for the order of a full
drug program, to which she did object at disposition, we conclude
the order was supported by substantial evidence. Mother had a
long-term substance abuse problem dating back to her teenage
years that included a variety of drugs and a heroin overdose the
prior year. She claimed to be sober at present but she also had
inconsistently reported her drug use history, and claimed to have
recently quit using heroin instantaneously and without a
treatment program, drug counseling, or support, all of which
permitted the court to conclude she continued to have a
substance abuse issue. (See In re K.B. (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th
593, 601 [“The juvenile court was entitled to conclude the mother
had been transparently dissembling about her drug use. A
reasonable inference was the mother was trying to hide her
ongoing addiction. The trial court was entitled to draw this

                                 25
reasonable inference”], disapproved on another ground in In re
N.R. (2023) 15 Cal.5th 520, 560, fn. 18.) At best, her sobriety was
nascent and had indications of fragility: Mother had not
undergone drug treatment or counseling, she had no emotional
support system, and, of particular concern given that L.J. was
being removed, Mother had a history of turning to drug abuse to
make herself feel better when her children were removed from
her custody during dependency proceedings. Based on this
evidence the juvenile court was well within its discretion to order
Mother to participate in a drug treatment program. Section 362,
subdivision (a) provides that when a child is adjudicated a
dependent of the juvenile court, “the court may make any and all
reasonable orders for the care, supervision, custody, conduct,
maintenance, and support of the child.” The court has broad
discretion in fashioning dispositional orders in keeping with its
duty to protect dependent children. (In re Christopher H. (1996)
50 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1006–1008.)

                         DISPOSITION

      The judgment is affirmed.

      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                          STRATTON, P. J.

We concur:

             WILEY, J.                    VIRAMONTES, J.

                                26