In re T.R. CA2/5

Opinion

Filed 9/15/26 In re T.R. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

In re T.R., a Person Coming B347798 Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. No. AND FAMILY SERVICES, 22CCJP00283C)

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. R.R., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark A. Davis, Judge. Affirmed. Caitlin Christian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Jacklyn K. Louie, Assistant County Counsel and Jane Kwon Principal Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent. R.R. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s July 14, 2025 finding at a six-month review hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.21, subdivision (e),1 that it would be detrimental to return her 18-month-old daughter T.R. (minor) to her custody. We affirm. The parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history, and our opinion does not meet the criteria for publication. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(c).) We therefore resolve this appeal by memorandum opinion pursuant to Standard 8.1 of the Standards of Judicial Administration and consistent with constitutional principles (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 14 [“Decisions of the Supreme Court and courts of appeal that determine causes shall be in writing with reasons stated”]; Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1263, fn. omitted [three-paragraph discussion of issue on appeal satisfies constitutional requirement because “an opinion is not a brief in reply to counsel’s arguments. [Citation.] In order to state the reasons, grounds, or principles upon which a decision is based, [an appellate court] need not discuss every case or fact raised by counsel in support of the parties’ positions”].) Mother appeals the court’s finding that it would be detrimental to return minor to mother’s custody, arguing that the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) did not meet its burden of proof at the six-month review hearing, because the Department did not identify a specific reason why minor was at risk of harm, and the risk to 1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

2 minor due to mother relapsing into drug use was speculative. Because minor was an infant at the time of her initial removal, “reunification services must be ordered for six months from the dispositional hearing, but no longer than 12 months from the time the child entered foster care. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(1)(B).)” (F.K. v. Superior Court (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 928, 934–936.) At the six-month review hearing, section 366.21, subdivision (e) provides that “after considering the admissible and relevant evidence, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to their parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child.” The burden of proof of establishing detriment by a preponderance of the evidence rests with the Department. (§ 366.21, subd. (e).) The same subdivision directs the court to consider the parent’s criminal history, as well as “whether the child can be returned to the custody of their parent who is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with their parent. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of detriment. In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social worker’s report and recommendations and the report and recommendations of any child advocate appointed pursuant to Section 356.5; and shall consider the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to which they availed themselves of services provided . . . .” (§ 366.21, subd. (e).)

3 “We review the juvenile court’s finding of detriment for substantial evidence by considering whether the evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supports the court’s finding. (Georgeanne G. v. Superior Court (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 856, 864; In re B.S. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 246, 252.) ‘We resolve all conflicts in support of the determination, indulge in all legitimate inferences to uphold the findings and may not substitute our deductions for those of the juvenile court.’ (Georgeanne G., at p. 865; accord, In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773.) ‘However, “[s]ubstantial evidence is not synonymous with any evidence. [Citation.] To be substantial, the evidence must be of ponderable legal significance and must be reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value.” ’ (Georgeanne G., at p. 865; accord, In re J.A. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 1036, 1046 [while substantial evidence may consist of inferences, any inferences must rest on the evidence; inferences based on speculation or conjecture cannot support a finding].) ‘ “A trial court abuses its discretion when it applies the wrong legal standard or its factual findings are not supported by substantial evidence.” ’ (In re R.F. (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 718, 728.)” (L.C. v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 1021, 1034.) The record on appeal includes substantial evidence to support the court’s implicit determination that it would be detrimental to minor to return her to mother’s custody at the six- month review hearing. Mother admitted that she began experimenting with alcohol and marijuana more than 20 years ago, when she was only 17 years old, and gradually moved to hardcore drugs like cocaine and methamphetamine. She acknowledged she had a problem with alcohol and methamphetamine. Mother had several drug-related arrests and 4 convictions. In 2014, the juvenile court declared mother’s three oldest children dependents based on substance use by mother and her then-boyfriend. That dependency case ended with exit orders granting the children’s respective fathers sole legal and physical custody, with mother having supervised visits. Mother later gave birth to two more children (K.R., born January 2018 and A.R., born January 2023) both of whom were declared dependents in June 2022 based on her past and current use of methamphetamine and leaving the children with an inappropriate care provider. Mother tested positive for methamphetamine while she was pregnant with A.R. Mother was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder on October 26, 2023, and started attending monthly individual counseling for most months. Minor was born in January 2024, while the dependency case involving the half-siblings was still ongoing. In April 2024, the juvenile court returned half-sibling A.R., less than 18 months old at the time, to mother’s custody. Mother attended an outpatient substance abuse program from November 13, 2023, through April 4, 2024, and enrolled in a subsequent program on June 10, 2024. Mother had consistent negative drug tests from March through August 2, 2024. However, mother had stopped meeting with her sponsor, attending meetings, receiving medication for her anxiety, and participating in therapy. She then relapsed on August 3, 2024, when she found a bag of drug paraphernalia, including a pipe with methamphetamine, while rearranging items in her storage unit. Neither A.R. nor minor were with mother when she encountered and took the methamphetamine, but mother admitted she dropped minor off with a caregiver at 9 a.m., got high at 11 a.m., and picked minor up at 4:30 p.m. the same day.

5 Mother tested positive for methamphetamine on August 6, 2024, but did not disclose her relapse to her counselor or her social worker. After receiving mother’s positive drug test, the Department obtained a warrant to detain A.R. and minor, and executed it on September 6, 2024. On November 20, 2024, mother pleaded no contest to allegations under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j), that minor was at risk of harm based on mother’s relapse and that her siblings were previously adjudged dependents based on mother’s substance use. The court ordered reunification services for mother to reunify with both A.R. and minor, directing mother to participate in a full drug/alcohol program with aftercare, weekly random and on-demand drug/alcohol testing, a 12-step program with court card and sponsor, a parenting class, and individual counseling to address case issues, including mental health issues, and to take all prescribed psychotropic medications. Mother’s visits with the children were to be monitored. Mother participated in reunification services and visited with the children between December 2024 and July 2025. She completed an inpatient residential treatment program on December 27, 2024, and transitioned to a different inpatient facility on December 30, 2024. Mother had two positive tests for methamphetamine within her treatment program on March 6, 2025, but tested negative for the Department on March 6, 2025 and March 7, 2025. Mother admitted to the social worker that after testing for the Department on March 6th, she had gone to a smoke shop where they had illegal gambling, and people were smoking. The positive tests at the treatment program were possibly due to secondhand smoke exposure. Mother had been gambling for more than 10 years, and used gambling to survive 6 and live off the profits. Mother enrolled in a new treatment program on March 13, 2025, where she learned that gambling is an addiction. Mother understood that she suffers from the disease of addiction, and while some people are able to do activities like drinking or gambling in moderation, she has a tendency to abuse anything she can and she has to be cautious because she is not like other people. Mother completed the inpatient treatment program on May 4, 2025, and would transition to a new program providing a lower level of care. However, on June 10, 2025, when a social worker asked mother for proof of intake in the new program, mother initially said she would provide proof of enrollment, but then admitted she was not at the new program’s facility because the program had advised that if her children were returned to mother, the program could not guarantee there would be space for mother and her children. Mother could not remember when she had left the program and was hesitant and evasive when answering questions about where she was living. She initially responded “yes” when the social worker asked if she was staying with a friend or at a hotel, eventually giving the hotel name and room number, but also saying she was going to be moving rooms. Mother did not attend any substance abuse programs between May 7, 2025 and June 17, 2025. On June 17, 2025, mother provided a proof of intake form for a different treatment program. Mother’s prior program could not guarantee that her children could live with her unless she enrolled while she still had custody of her children. However, mother’s newest treatment program, where mother started attending programming on June 23, 2025, would permit children to be returned to mother’s care while she was participating in the program.

7 Based on the Department’s reports of mother’s monitored visits with A.R. and minor, while there were no direct safety concerns raised with respect to minor, mother sometimes appeared tired and would leave the room where the children were for extended periods of time. On a few occasions, mother was not paying sufficient attention to A.R. and his needs and safety. Both A.R. and minor resided with paternal grandmother, who expressed that during visits, mother would ignore A.R. in favor of minor, and A.R. was starting to exhibit negative behaviors. In addition, paternal grandmother reported that mother was driving with an expired license. The Department reported that when mother is not under strict supervision from an inpatient program, she fails to live a healthy and sober lifestyle, continues to make poor choices and fails to implement the tools and skills from the programs. The Department wanted mother to show continued progress in her program, focusing on her sobriety and coping skills before the children are returned to her care. The Department recommended for reunification services to continue for minor, but to terminate reunification services for A.R., because mother had already received 18 months of services for A.R. On July 14, 2025, the juvenile court ordered six months of additional reunification services for mother. Mother argues that her ongoing engagement in services, particularly her enrollment in a residential treatment program that permitted children, and her strong bond with minor, made any finding of detriment speculative, and that the Department failed to identify any specific risk posed to minor if she were placed with mother at the residential treatment program. Mother points to M.G. v. Superior Court (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 8 646, 658–662, to argue that a detriment finding cannot be based on speculation. However, we agree with the Department that M.G. is distinguishable because in that case, the mother had maintained her sobriety for close to three years, the court stated on the record that mother’s sobriety was not in question at an 18- month review hearing, and the only risk was a speculative one that mother’s relationship with a former boyfriend would put her sobriety in jeopardy. (Id. at p. 653, 657−658.) In the case before us, in contrast, the length and severity of mother’s substance abuse history, her numerous prior relapses, and her issues with addiction and mental health—including her recent acknowledgment of an addiction to gambling that exposed mother to drug use as reflected by her March 6, 2025 positive methamphetamine test result—provide sufficient evidence to support a finding of detriment for a child who only lived with mother for the first 7 months of her life, and was only 18 months old at the time of the 6-month review hearing. We find substantial evidence supported the court’s implicit determination that returning minor to mother’s custody would be detrimental.

9 DISPOSITION

The July 14, 2025 order is affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

MOOR, J.

WE CONCUR:

HOFFSTADT, P. J.

KIM (D.), J.