Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court No. CK66812 of the County of Los Angeles, Anthony Trendacosta, Referee (pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21).
Linda Rehm, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant, Crystal Z.
Harry Zimmerman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant, Fausto C.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Kim Nemoy, Senior Deputy County Counsel for Respondent.
MOSK, J.
INTRODUCTION
Fausto C. (father) and Crystal Z. (mother)—the parents of one-year old Savannah C. (child)—were arrested for possession of methamphetamine. The child was booked under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 and released to the custody of her maternal grandmother (grandmother). The Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a petition in the juvenile court under section 300, subdivision (b), alleging that the parents’ drug use put the child at risk of serious physical injury or illness. After reviewing the evidence provided by DCFS, including the report of the parents’ arrests and a report of an interview with the grandmother who stated that the parents used drugs in the presence of the child, the juvenile court sustained the petition, declared the child a dependent of the court, removed her from her parents’ custody, placed her in the custody of DCFS for suitable placement, and ordered reunification services for the parents.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.
The parents appeal the juvenile court’s jurisdiction and disposition orders arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s findings that (i) the child was a person described in section 300, subdivision (b); (ii) continued placement of the child in the parents’ home would be contrary to the child’s welfare; (iii) a substantial danger existed to the physical and emotional well being of the child; and (iv) there were no reasonable means to protect the child without removal from the parents’ home. After reviewing the evidence presented to the juvenile court, we hold that there was substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s findings and therefore affirm the orders from which the parents appeal.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On January 27, 2007, at the request of the police, DCFS responded to the Harbor Division station to conduct an independent investigation into alleged child abuse and neglect. A children’s social worker (CSW) met with a police officer who informed the CSW that a search warrant had been executed at the parents’ home that evening. As a result of the search, the police recovered a bag containing methamphetamine and a pipe commonly used to smoke methamphetamine. The drugs were located in a “curler box” in the child’s bedroom and the pipe was in the toilet. During the execution of the warrant, one adult male jumped out of a window of the residence and fled the scene. Two other adults were found in the home in possession of methamphetamine. They admitted using methamphetamine with mother and father. The police arrested mother, father, and the two adults for possession of methamphetamine, took the child into protective custody, and ultimately released her to DCFS. The child was placed with her grandmother over father’s objections. The police provided the grandmother with a protective order requiring father to stay 100 yards away from the grandmother.
The details of the search of the parents’ home and their arrest were contained in a police report that was submitted to the juvenile court in connection with a later hearing.
One of the two adults was arrested for being under the influence of methamphetamine.
The CSW interviewed mother while in custody. Mother appeared “dirty,” “disheveled,” and “unkempt.” Mother admitted she had a history of substance abuse, beginning when she was 18 years old, and involving both marijuana and methamphetamine use. She admitted to monthly methamphetamine use and using methamphetamine during her entire pregnancy with the child. She tested positive for methamphetamine when the child was born, resulting in her participation in Voluntary Family Maintenance (VFM) services provided by DCFS. But mother denied that she was currently using methamphetamine and stated that she had no knowledge of the drugs located in her house by the police. Mother also denied that father currently used methamphetamine.
Mother maintained that she tested “clean” during her participation in the VFM services provided by DCFS. However, DCFS case records showed that mother and father continuously failed to participate in random drug tests and refused to submit to “on-demand” drug tests while VFM services were being provided.
The CSW also attempted to interview father, but he was uncooperative and argumentative. Father denied that the methamphetamine found in his home by the police was his, stating, “I did not see none.” Father admitted to using marijuana and methamphetamine when he was 16 or 17 years old, but denied using such drugs since that time. His criminal history, however, showed that he was arrested on January 12, 2004, for possession of a controlled substance for sale/transportation and convicted of that charge. His criminal record also reflects that he was arrested for possession of a controlled substance while incarcerated in the North Kern State prison. Father’s criminal history was extensive, including arrests for possession/manufacture of a dangerous weapon; possession of a firearm; possession of live ammunition; numerous counts of petty theft; use/under the influence of a controlled substance; trespassing; driving under the influence; and grand theft. After admitting an affiliation with a gang, but denying current involvement in gang activity, father refused to speak further with the investigating CSW.
Based on the foregoing information, the CSW concluded that the child was a victim of general neglect and was “at very high risk.” Accordingly, DCFS removed the child from the parents’ home because the parents were not providing the child with “a stable and safe environment, free of imminent risk of neglect . . . .”
On January 31, 2007, the juvenile court held a detention hearing and considered the CSW report containing the foregoing information. Mother and father appeared represented by counsel. The juvenile court found that DCFS had made a prima facie showing that “the child [was] a person described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 300.” Temporary placement and care of the child was vested in DCFS and reunification services for the parents were ordered. The parents were granted monitored visits with the child at least three times a week and DCFS was instructed to advise the grandmother, with whom the child was placed, to cooperate with the visitation plan. In response to the parents’ request that the child be placed with her godmother because they had a difficult relationship with the grandmother, the juvenile court ruled that DCFS had the discretion to place the child with her godparents.
On February 16, 2007, a CSW conducted a further interview with mother. Mother denied that she or father used drugs around the child. She also denied having any knowledge about the bag of drugs found in her curler box or any drug paraphernalia. She stated that the friends staying at her house were just there to take a shower and that she could not explain how the drugs and paraphernalia might have been placed in her home. According to mother, the district attorney rejected the criminal case against father, and she was released after a 72-hour hold.
Mother maintained that she did not have a history of methamphetamine use, and that although she may have used that drug a few times when she was 15, “[t]hat was it.” She then admitted, however, that she used methamphetamine when she was pregnant with the child. Nevertheless, mother denied that she had a substance abuse problem and that she was currently using drugs or alcohol.
Father informed the CSW that the criminal case against him was false and that the district attorney had rejected it because the police did not have a search warrant and did not have any evidence against him. Father claimed to have no knowledge of the drugs and paraphernalia found in his home.
According to father, before he went to prison in 2003, he and mother “used [methamphetamine] quite a bit throughout that year.” “It [methamphetamine use] was a problem for [father].” But father did not “see it being a problem for [mother].” Nevertheless, father admitted that on the day of the child’s birth, mother tested positive for methamphetamine and that he was “shocked.”
Father informed the CSW that the grandmother would call DCFS and falsely allege that he and mother were taking drugs. Father claimed that the grandmother was not concerned about the child, but rather was “just a person who doesn’t have a life and wants to bring her daughter down.”
On February 28, 2007, a CSW interviewed the grandmother by telephone. The grandmother informed the CSW that she had found “crackpipes” in mother and father’s home on more than one occasion within the past year while cleaning their home, babysitting the child, and doing their laundry. Among other places, the grandmother found “crackpipes” in the dryer and zipped inside a couch pillow. In addition, she found a “baggie” containing what she described as drug residue on the kitchen floor, a location where the child “could easily have gotten a hold of [it] . . . .”
The grandmother also reported that she had observed the family’s home “filthy” on a number of occasions during the past year, with “clothes all over, garbage all over, food all over, food on the couch.” According to the grandmother, mother and father were “drug addicts,” and father was a “drug dealer.” She had observed “a lot of different people constantly in and out of mother and father’s apartment” and neighbors had seen him “dealing dope” behind the apartment complex. The grandmother confirmed that the child would be in the house with mother while father was “out back selling drugs.”
In addition, the grandmother observed mother and father leaving the apartment with the child at 1:00 a.m. on more than one occasion. They also asked her to watch the child late at night or early in the morning while they went out. And, on one occasion, the grandmother discovered that the parents had left the child with a woman the grandmother did not know and who appeared not to know how to care for the child. The grandmother was very fearful for the safety of the child.
From the grandmother’s perspective, the parents’ drug use was “out of control.” She stated that “they are even smoking that shit [methamphetamine] in the house with the baby.” She came to that conclusion because “she could smell it [methamphetamine] when she went into the apartment. . . . [I]t was a chemical smell mixed with the smell of butane . . . [and] it was nasty.”
On March 2, 2007, the juvenile court held a pretrial resolution conference. Father and mother appeared represented by counsel. The juvenile court continued the hearing pending receipt of certain additional information and instructed DCFS to admonish the grandmother concerning her duty to facilitate the parents’ visitation rights.
After two more continuances, the juvenile court held a jurisdiction/disposition hearing on June 1, 2007. Neither mother nor father was present in court, but they were represented by counsel. In connection with the hearing, DCFS submitted a supplemental report that stated, inter alia, that mother and father were not participating in the court-ordered substance abuse programs and had not submitted to random drug testing, despite their agreement to do so. The juvenile court admitted certain DCFS reports with attachments, including the CSW’s report of the interview with the grandmother and the police report recounting the arrests of mother and father. After hearing argument from counsel, the juvenile court amended the petition by interlineation striking certain allegations, found that the child was a person described by section 300, subdivision (b), and sustained the petition. The juvenile court declared the child a dependent of the court, removed custody of the child from the parents, placed the child in the care of DCFS for suitable placement, and ordered continued reunification services for the parents.
On August 1, 2007, both parents filed notices of appeal from the juvenile court’s order declaring the child a dependent of the court under section 300, subdivision (b).
DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
The parents contend that there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s jurisdiction and disposition orders. “When the sufficiency of the evidence to support a juvenile court’s finding or order is challenged on appeal, the reviewing court must determine if there is substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, that supports it. (In re Savannah M. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1393 [32 Cal.Rptr.3d 526]; Cheryl P. v. Superior Court (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 87, 96 [42 Cal.Rptr.3d 504] [‘A court reviews an order denying reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b) for substantial evidence’].) Under this standard of review we examine the whole record in a light most favorable to the findings and conclusions of the juvenile court and defer to the lower court on issues of credibility of the evidence and witnesses. (In re Tania S. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 728, 733–734 [7 Cal.Rptr.2d 60].) We must resolve all conflicts in support of the determination and indulge all legitimate inferences to uphold the court’s order. Additionally, we may not substitute our deductions for those of the trier of fact. (In re Katrina C. (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 540, 547 [247 Cal.Rptr. 784]; In re John V. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1201, 1212 [7 Cal.Rptr.2d 629]; In re Eric B. (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 996, 1004–1005 [235 Cal.Rptr. 22].) [¶] However, substantial evidence is not synonymous with any evidence. (In re Savannah M., supra, 131 Cal.App.4th at p. 1393.) ‘A decision supported by a mere scintilla of evidence need not be affirmed on appeal. [Citation.] Furthermore, “[w]hile substantial evidence may consist of inferences, such inferences must be ‘a product of logic and reason’ and ‘must rest on the evidence’ [citation]; inferences that are the result of mere speculation or conjecture cannot support a finding [citations].” [Citation.] “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.]’ (Id. at pp. 1393–1394; accord, In re David M. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 822, 828 [36 Cal.Rptr.3d 411].)” (In re Albert T. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 207, 216-217.)
B. Jurisdiction Order
The parents argue that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding of jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b). That section provides, in pertinent part: “Any child who comes within any of the following descriptions is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court which may adjudge that person to be a dependent child of the court: [¶] (b) The child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness, as a result of the failure or inability of his or her parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child, or the willful or negligent failure of the child’s parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child from the conduct of the custodian with whom the child has been left, or by the willful or negligent failure of the parent or guardian to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment, or by the inability of the parent or guardian to provide regular care for the child due to the parent’s or guardian’s mental illness, developmental disability, or substance abuse.” (Italics added.)
Father joined in mother’s arguments and presented certain additional arguments.
According to the parents, there was no evidence of current drug use by either of them; the evidence of past drug use was not linked to any evidence of imminent danger to the child; the substance found in their house that resembled methamphetamine was never tested; and there was no evidence that drugs were within the reach of the child. Therefore, the parents contend that there was little, if any, evidence that the child was at substantial risk of serious physical harm or that they were unable to care for the child due to their substance abuse.
The parents’ characterization of the evidence is too restrictive and ignores critical admissions by them, as well as other compelling evidence. In particular, the parents minimize the information provided by the grandmother and contained in the police report of their arrests.
For example, mother admitted to testing positive for methamphetamine the day the child was born, and father admitted to being a drug abuser prior to his imprisonment for possession of methamphetamine. Mother’s positive test on the day the child was born resulted in DCFS providing VFM services to the parents during which they refused to cooperate in drug testing.
Moreover, the grandmother reported that during the year prior to the parents’ arrest, she repeatedly observed their house in disarray, with clothes, garbage and food “all over” the house. In addition, during that same period, the grandmother found “crackpipes” hidden in the house, and, on one occasion, she found a “baggie” containing what she described as drug residue on the kitchen floor within the reach of the child. She also saw people constantly going in and out of the parents’ house, and neighbors told her that father was dealing drugs behind the apartment complex. When she entered the parents’ house to clean or babysit, she smelled a chemical odor, mixed with a butane odor. In addition, she witnessed the parents taking the child out or dropping her off at the grandmother’s house at odd hours; and on one occasion they left the child with a woman unknown to the grandmother. Although mother and father discount this evidence, our role is not to evaluate the evidence but determine whether it is sufficient.
That evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the juvenile court’s findings, supports a reasonable inference that one or both of the parents were involved in drug use at the family’s residence. And, any doubts about such drug use in the house were dispelled by the evidence of the parents’ arrests. When police arrived at the house, one adult jumped out a window and fled. Two other adults inside the house were found with methamphetamine in their possession and they admitted using methamphetamine with the parents. A bag containing a substance consistent in appearance to methamphetamine was found in mother’s curler box and a pipe used for smoking methamphetamine was found in the toilet. And, when the CSW interviewed mother in jail after her arrest, mother appeared dirty, disheveled, and unkempt.
The quantum of credible evidence suggesting drug use by the parents in the home was more than sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that the child was at substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness. Similarly, the evidence supported a reasonable inference that the parents were unable to provide adequate care for the child due to their substance abuse. Although the parents disputed such current drug use, there is inconsistent evidence, including their refusal to test during the VFM and reunification services and the grandmother’s information about their lifestyle and peculiar habits. As noted above, it was the juvenile court’s responsibility to judge credibility and weigh the evidence. (In re Albert T., supra, 144 Cal.App.4th at pp. 216-217.) When, as here, there is substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s factual findings, we cannot disturb those findings on appeal. Under the applicable standard of review discussed above, there is sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s challenged jurisdictional findings. We therefore affirm the jurisdiction order as supported by substantial evidence.
C. Disposition Order
The parents also challenge the disposition order removing the child from their custody. According to the parents, the juvenile court did not explain its reasons for concluding that there were no available means for protecting the child other than removing her from their home. Therefore, parents argue that the child could have stayed in their custody despite the juvenile court’s finding of jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b).
As with their arguments about the jurisdiction order, the parents’ arguments about the disposition order are based on an overly restrictive view of the evidence before the juvenile court. The juvenile court was confronted with evidence of father being an admitted gang member and drug user who had spent time in prison for possession of methamphetamine. Other evidence was that mother tested positive for methamphetamine on the day the child was born. There is evidence that both parents refused to cooperate in or submit to drug testing during the earlier VFM services and the subsequent reunification services, facts that seriously undercut their denials of current drug use. And, according to the grandmother, the child was taken from the home by the parents at odd hours or left with strangers. That evidence supported an inference that the child was being exposed to drugs, drug users, and drug paraphernalia on a regular basis.
Such evidence was sufficient for the trial court to conclude that the child could not be safely left in the custody of the parents while such a home environment persisted. The parents failed to propose any rational alternative to removal. Given the facts with which it was presented, the juvenile court was within its discretion in removing the child from the parents’ home. Therefore, there was substantial evidence supporting the juvenile court’s removal of the child from the parents’ custody. We therefore affirm the disposition order.
DISPOSITION
The jurisdiction and disposition orders of the juvenile court are affirmed.
We concur: ARMSTRONG, Acting P. J., KRIEGLER, J.