Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. CK80357 Marguerite D. Downing, Judge.
Roni Keller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Andrea Sheridan Ordin, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, Melinda S. White-Svec, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
KLEIN, P. J.
S.H. (mother) appeals jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders made by the juvenile court with respect to her 10-year-old daughter, Erica M. Mother contends the evidence is insufficient to support the juvenile court’s orders. We reject this contention and affirm the juvenile court’s orders.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On December 9, 2009, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department executed a search warrant at mother’s residence as part of an investigation regarding illegal street gang activity and advised the Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) that five or six children residing in the home were at risk. A social worker interviewed mother at the scene. Mother stated her boyfriend is the grandson of the owner of the home. Mother admitted a criminal history but denied substance abuse.
The social worker observed the living room had been converted into a bedroom and was occupied by two adults and two children. A second bedroom was occupied by Erica M., an adult female and her two children. A third bedroom belonged to a family member who is a double amputee. A fourth bedroom was occupied by mother and Alonzo L. The social worker detected the “strong stench of marijuana” emanating from mother’s bedroom which became stronger when the social worker entered the room. The social worker observed a gas mask with a hose like apparatus on the bed. A deputy sheriff stated a gas mask is sometimes used to smoke marijuana. In a fifth bedroom occupied by teenagers, there was a small baggie of marijuana on top of the dresser in plain sight and easily accessible. Mother and her boyfriend were arrested on outstanding warrants and Erica M. was detained. Mother’s warrant was issued in a possession of a controlled substance case. The Department filed a dependency petition alleging a detrimental and endangering home environment and sought jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b).
At the detention hearing five days later, the juvenile court released Erica M. to mother and ordered the Department to provide family maintenance services.
On December 16, 2009, mother tested positive for marijuana.
The jurisdiction report included mother’s admission she was arrested on August 5, 2008, for possession of a controlled substance after mother was involved in a traffic accident and police officers found a “blunt roach” in her car. Mother indicated mother’s boyfriend told the officers the “blunt roach” was his. However, both mother and her boyfriend were cited for possession of marijuana. Mother was arrested on a bench warrant issued in this case for failure to pay a restitution fine when Erica M. was detained. Mother went to court the next day and the case was dismissed. The Department reported mother’s criminal arrest history indicates she also was arrested on August 5, 2008, for driving on a suspended license.
Mother stated the small amount of marijuana found in the room of her boyfriend’s uncle was for his personal use and he always kept his room locked. The gas mask came from the room where the marijuana was found and mother had no idea why it was in her room. Mother claimed marijuana smoking was not allowed in the home because of the children. Mother stated, “I only smoke cigarettes and cigars in my room. I don’t know why they say that my room smelled like marijuana.” Mother admitted she formerly smoked marijuana daily for three years but denied use of marijuana after July 1, 2008. Mother claimed she tested positive for marijuana on December 16, 2009, because she is around many people who smoke marijuana.
The jurisdiction report noted Erica M. denied abuse or neglect and stated she feels safe living with mother. Erica M. stated she does not know what drugs are or what marijuana is. Erica M. indicated mother smokes cigarettes outside the house and the child is never left home alone. Erica M. likes school and is doing well. The social worker found Erica M. to be healthy and well cared for by mother. Mother told the social worker she would refrain from drug use and was willing to participate in a substance abuse program, parenting classes and individual counseling. Mother stated she plans to move as she is aware her current neighborhood is not a good environment for her daughter. The social worker concluded mother’s use of controlled substances did not appear to impede her ability to care for Erica M. The Department assessed the risk for abuse as low and recommended the child remain in the care of mother.
At the adjudication hearing on January 21, 2010, the juvenile court received the detention and jurisdiction reports into evidence with attachments. The dependency investigator testified that despite mother’s positive test result for marijuana, Erica M. was well cared for by mother, she is not afraid to be in the home, she attends school regularly and mother’s use of marijuana does not appear to affect Erica. Nonetheless, the investigator believed Erica M. was at risk due to mother’s current drug use and possible gang affiliation.
The juvenile court declared Erica M. a dependent child under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b). The juvenile court found mother’s denial of current drug use was not credible in light of her positive drug test and concluded there was risk to Erica M. in mother’s denial of drug use. Further, mother acknowledged detriment to Erica M. would arise from contact with people who smoke marijuana on a regular basis and yet marijuana was found in the home. Based on these factors, the juvenile court found “there is a future risk in this case” and declared Erica M. a dependent. The juvenile court allowed mother to retain custody of Erica M. under the Department’s supervision and ordered mother to participate in a parent education class and to provide eight clean drug tests or participate in a drug rehabilitation program.
As sustained, the petition alleged mother “established a detrimental and endangering home environment for the child in that marijuana was found in the child’s home within access of the child.” Further, mother was arrested on December 9, 2009, on a warrant issued in a possession of a controlled substance case and mother is a current abuser of marijuana as she tested positive for marijuana on December 16, 2009. “Such a detrimental and endangering home environment established for the child by the mother and the mother’s use of illicit drugs endangers the child’s physical and emotional health and safety and places a child at risk of physical and emotional harm, damage and danger.”
DISCUSSION
Mother contends the presence of marijuana in the home is insufficient, without more, to warrant removal of a child from a parent’s custody. (In re W.O. (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 906, 909.) Mother argues there was no evidence of neglect of Erica M. and, absent any risk of harm to Erica M. caused by mother’s neglectful conduct, dependency jurisdiction may not be asserted. (In re Savannah M. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1395-1396.) Mother notes Erica M. was healthy, she was never left alone, she felt safe living with mother, she was well groomed and was doing well at school. Further, marijuana was not found in mother’s room and Erica M. indicated she was unaware marijuana was being used in the home. Mother concludes the jurisdictional finding and the dispositional orders must be set aside.
We review a jurisdictional finding in a dependency case for substantial evidence. (In re Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 193.) We draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders of the juvenile court, we review the record in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s determinations, and we adhere to the principle that issues of fact, weight, and credibility are the provinces of the juvenile court. (In re Shelley J. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 322, 329.) “ ‘The ultimate test is whether it is reasonable for a trier of fact to make the ruling in question in light of the whole record.’ [Citation.]” (In re Savannah M., supra, 131 Cal.App.4th at p. 1394.)
Evidence indicating a parent consumes marijuana, alcohol or other drugs, without more, is not sufficient to sustain the exercise of dependency jurisdiction. (See In re David M. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 822, 830; In re Rocco M. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 814, 825-826; In re Jeannette S. (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 52, 59, fn. 2.) However, when viewed most favorably to the juvenile court’s order, the record establishes mother abused marijuana and, in so doing, placed Erica M. at substantial risk of harm.
The juvenile court specifically rejected mother’s denial of current marijuana use and the evidence suggested mother was a chronic user. Mother admitted she previously consumed marijuana on a daily basis and the evidence showed she used an unusual apparatus, the gas mask and hose, to consume it. Chronic use also is consistent with the social worker’s detection of the strong odor of marijuana in mother’s bedroom. Further, both marijuana and the gas mask were found in areas of the home accessible to Erica M. In addition to residing in an overcrowded home in a gang neighborhood in which marijuana and drug paraphernalia were found within Erica M.’s access, the evidence further showed mother was involved in a traffic accident on August 5, 2008, two months after mother assertedly quit smoking marijuana, and police officers investigating the accident found what mother described as a “blunt roach” in the vehicle. Mother and her boyfriend were arrested for possession of marijuana. Mother also was cited for driving on a suspended license, indicating she was operating the vehicle at the time of the accident.
This evidence permitted the juvenile court reasonably to conclude Erica M. faced a substantial risk of serious physical harm attributable to mother’s excessive use of marijuana based not only on the exposure of Erica M. to an environment where marijuana is consumed excessively and marijuana and drug paraphernalia were present in the home within the child’s access, but also based on Erica M.’s exposure to the risk of being harmed in a serious car accident involving a vehicle driven by mother while under the influence of marijuana. By rejecting mother’s denial of current marijuana use, the juvenile court reasonably could conclude mother continues to smoke marijuana as she previously had, which included smoking marijuana in vehicles, and that Erica M. likely would be a passenger in a vehicle driven by mother.
Consequently, the finding Erica M. was at current risk of future harm finds support in the record. The juvenile court was not prohibited from asserting jurisdiction merely because Erica M. had not yet been injured. “Juvenile dependency law in general does not require a child to be actually harmed before [the Department] and the courts may intervene.” (In re Leticia S. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 378, 383, fn. 3; In re Eric B. (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 996, 1002-1004.)
Because mother attacks the juvenile court’s dispositional order only on the ground it is unsupported by a sufficient jurisdictional finding, this claim also fails.
DISPOSITION
The orders of the juvenile court are affirmed.
We concur: CROSKEY, J., ALDRICH, J.