In re K.H. CA2/5

Opinion

Filed 9/28/26 In re K.H. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 K.H. et al., Persons Coming B349293 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County _____________________________ Super. Ct. No. LOS ANGELES COUNTY 24CCJP02432A-B) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.S., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Sally Espinoza, Judge. Affirmed. Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Jacklyn K. Louie, Assistant County Counsel, and Eden Gharapet Oxford, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ****** The juvenile court declared the two young children of A.S. (mother) to be dependents, and ordered the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) to provide mother with reunification services. At the six-month and 12-month review hearings, the court found continued jurisdiction necessary because the conditions justifying jurisdiction persisted and return of the children would be detrimental. Mother appeals from the detriment finding made at the contested 12-month review hearing. Substantial evidence supports that finding, and we therefore affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. Facts A. The family Mother has two children—K.H. (born 2020) and P.H. (born 2022)—who are the subjects of this appeal. The father or fathers of K.H. and P.H. are unknown and are not parties to this appeal. During the pendency of these proceedings, mother gave birth to a third child. That child and the child’s father are not parties to this appeal. B. Conduct giving rise to dependency jurisdiction Mother moved to California in late 2023 after becoming homeless in Arizona. She remained unhoused in California, moving among shelters and at times staying at the Union Rescue Mission in Los Angeles. In January 2024, mother and K.H. stayed in a hospital room where P.H. was recovering from ear surgery necessitated by 2 mastoiditis. The hospital room became filthy with trash and clutter, and hospital staff had to change both of the children’s diapers because mother was not doing so. Mother was also neglecting to take care of K.H. and negotiated with a nurse that, in exchange for mother picking up antibiotics for K.H.’s perforated eardrum, the nurse would bathe and change K.H. In early June 2024, while mother was on the telephone, K.H., left alone in a bathtub, climbed onto the toilet and sink to reach a bar of soap and fell between the fixtures. Mother did not seek medical attention. On another occasion, building security intervened to stop P.H. from being struck by a car when he was found outside alone. Soon thereafter, a Department social worker visited mother and observed that K.H. had visible scars 2-3 inches long on both sides of her back that appeared to be several days old. K.H. reported she fell from a bathroom counter and hit her back on a mop bucket; mother confirmed this account. Mother explained that P.H. had gotten outside because K.H. opened the door. She acknowledged she “struggle[ed] to raise her children” asking “[w]hat am I supposed to do when they don’t listen” and stated that K.H. has a “behavior problem” and “does whatever she wants.”1 Later, while the social worker was present, P.H. again wandered toward the street from a parking lot and had to be stopped and returned to mother by the social worker. The social worker described mother’s room as having a “foul odor” and being infested with flies and other insects. Both children appeared neglected in terms of their hygiene, in 1 In early June K.H. was seen outside the home alone at approximately 10:00 p.m., and in late June, K.H. scratched P.H. on the face, causing two lacerations.

3 particular K.H. who had hardened feces on her leg and a rash on her thighs and genital area. In late June 2024, mother left the children with her boyfriend while she went to a laundry room. When she returned she saw blue detergent on P.H.’s face and discovered he had ingested a laundry detergent pod. When asked about this incident, mother deflected stating: “When you ask your boyfriend to watch your children I would think they could do that” and added that she gave P.H. some milk and reported he was “watching the phone” and was “fine.” In July 2024, the children appeared at medical appointments unkempt, in dirty diapers, and complaining of hunger. Although physicians recommended evaluation of P.H. for developmental concerns, mother declined to pursue treatment. On August 1, 2024, the children were detained from mother and placed with a caregiver. The caregiver reported both children had head lice; P.H. had scratch marks on his cheek; and K.H. had multiple marks on her body and a diaper rash. P.H. was nonverbal, could not hear, and placed objects such as rocks in his mouth, requiring constant supervision. K.H., nearly four years old, remained in diapers, was only partially toilet trained, and had frequent tantrums. II. Procedural Background A. Detention and initial petition On August 5, 2024, the Department filed a petition asking the juvenile court to exert dependency jurisdiction over K.H. and P.H. alleging mother’s inability “to provide appropriate parental care and supervision of the children.” The petition noted K.H.’s unsanitary condition when she had hardened feces on her body 4 and also referenced incidents when the children were left unsupervised, K.H. was found outside alone, P.H. was almost struck by a vehicle, and P.H. ingested a laundry detergent pod. These incidents of mother’s deficient parenting “endanger[ed] the children’s physical health and safety and place[d] [them] at [substantial] risk of serious physical harm, damage, and danger,” thereby warranting the exercise of dependency jurisdiction under subdivision (b) of Welfare and Institutions Code section 300.2 On September 18, 2024, the Department filed a First Amended Petition adding a further allegation under section 300, subdivision (b) that mother failed to provide timely and appropriate medical care for P.H. including delaying treatment for an ear infection that progressed to mastoiditis requiring surgery, and failed to provide appropriate follow-up care.3 At the jurisdiction/disposition hearing on November 21, 2024, mother waived her right to a trial, and the juvenile court sustained the amended petition. The court found by clear and convincing evidence, that returning the children to mother would create a “substantial risk of detriment” to the children’s safety, and ordered reunification services. The case plan included assistance with transportation and housing, a psychiatric evaluation with compliance with any prescribed medication, 2 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.

3 Mother’s visitation during this period was sporadic. In October 2024, she left her housing in Los Angeles and relocated to Fresno County with a new boyfriend, where they sought housing and she requested a transfer of her case. The following month, mother met another “guy friend” and returned to Los Angeles with him.

5 parenting classes tailored to special-needs children, and monitored visitation at least three times per week for three hours. B. Six-month review hearing 1. Case plan progress From November 2024 to May 2025, the children resided with the same caregiver and received all appropriate services. Mother completed a parenting program and was on a waitlist for therapy. She was pregnant with her third child and described the pregnancy as high risk, limiting her ability to work. Mother expressed stress about caring for three young children and uncertainty about how she would manage upon reunification. She also reported instability in her living situation and relationship with the father of her unborn child and suggested placement with the maternal grandmother in Sacramento. During visits with the children, mother tended to focus on P.H. and required redirection to attend to K.H., who sometimes misbehaved to obtain attention and did not consistently follow directions, leading to mother’s frustration. Mother remained unhoused, staying in motels and receiving financial assistance from the father of her unborn child, though she stated they were not in a romantic relationship. 2. Review hearing At the six-month status review hearing on June 4, 2025, the juvenile court found mother in substantial compliance with the case plan and noted “significant progress” but expressed concern regarding the unequal attention given to her children during her visitation and the frustration she encounters when attempting to supervise them. The court found the conditions justifying jurisdiction continued to exist and that return of the 6 children would be detrimental. The court continued reunification services for an additional six months.4 C. 12-month review hearing 1. Case plan progress During the next review period, P.H. was diagnosed with autism and an intellectual disability. He remained nonverbal and received occupational therapy. P.H. developed an eating disorder that caused him to eat non-edible food items such as dirt or paint and required him to be consistently supervised. Mother reported she was living with a family friend “Ms. Bella” but declined to provide identifying information because the individual did not wish to interact with the Department. Mother also identified “Adrian” as the father of her third child and her primary support who planned to be in her and her children’s lives, but refused to provide further information due to his criminal history and prior dependency involvement. The Department explained that the information was necessary to ensure child safety and conduct background checks. Mother’s visits with the children were generally appropriate, but she continued to have difficulty redirecting the children when they misbehaved. During an August 9, 2025 visit, P.H. accessed mother’s purse, retrieved hand sanitizer, and attempted to ingest it; he also fell and sustained a bruise. On August 13, 2025, a visit at the apartment where mother was residing ended early after mother became frustrated, blaming the social worker for not having diapers. The social worker explained it was important for a parent to demonstrate the ability to provide for the children’s necessities. On August 18, 2025, P.H. accessed a bottle of DayQuil from the table, opened it, and spilled 4 Mother did not appeal this finding.

7 it on himself. Mother reported that the children do not listen to her and attributed her frustration in part to her pregnancy. 2. Review hearing At the 12-month status review hearing on September 24, 2025, the juvenile court again found mother had made substantial progress but determined that returning the children to her custody would be detrimental. The court cited the safety incidents during unmonitored visitation, including P.H.’s access to DayQuil and hand sanitizer, as well as mother’s ongoing inability to adequately supervise. The court also expressed concern that individuals residing with or supporting mother—Ms. Bella and Adrian—had not been assessed due to mother’s refusal to provide information. The court continued reunification services for an additional six months. D. Appeal Mother timely filed this appeal. DISCUSSION Mother contends the juvenile court erred in finding that returning K.H. and P.H. to her custody at the 12-month review hearing would create a substantial risk of detriment. She argues the record instead demonstrates meaningful progress, consistent visitation, and developing parenting skills sufficient to permit the return of the children. At the 12-month review hearing, the juvenile court must return a dependent child to parental custody unless it finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that return would create a “substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child.” (§ 366.21, subd. (f)(1).) The social services agency bears the burden of establishing detriment. (Ibid.; Cynthia D. v. Superior Court 8 (1993) 5 Cal.4th 242, 249.) In making its determination, the court considers the parent’s participation in services and the extent to which the parent has alleviated the conditions leading to removal. (§ 366.21, subd. (f)(1)(C); In re Dustin R. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1141–1142.) We review the juvenile court’s finding of detriment for substantial evidence, asking only whether the finding is supported by evidence that is ‘“reasonable, credible[,] and of solid value . . . .’ [Citation.]” (In re E.D. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 960, 966.) We construe the record in the light most favorable to the court’s finding and do not consider whether there is evidence from which the court could have drawn a different conclusion. (In re A.C. (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 38, 43; In re M.R. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 101, 108.) Substantial evidence supported the juvenile court’s determination that returning the children to mother’s custody at the time of the 12-month hearing would pose a substantial risk of detriment. The primary basis for jurisdiction—mother’s inability to adequately supervise very young children—remained unresolved. By the 12-month hearing, P.H. had significant special needs, including autism, intellectual disability, and an eating disorder requiring constant supervision. Yet recent unmonitored visits reflected continuing lapses. P.H. accessed hand sanitizer from mother’s purse and attempted to ingest it, and on a separate occasion accessed a bottle of DayQuil left within reach. Although mother minimized these incidents, the court could reasonably view them as evidence that she had not developed the ability to anticipate and prevent foreseeable risks—particularly given P.H.’s known behaviors. These incidents echoed the conduct that 9 led to jurisdiction, including P.H.’s prior ingestion of a laundry detergent pod and repeated instances of the children wandering unsupervised. The recurrence of similar safety concerns supported the finding that the underlying problem—insufficient supervision—had not been adequately addressed. The record also shows mother continued to struggle managing both children. She had difficulty dividing her attention, became frustrated during visits, and required prompting to address K.H.’s behavior. Although she completed a parenting program, the court could reasonably conclude she had not yet translated those skills into consistent, safe parenting under real-world conditions. As courts have repeatedly recognized, “simply complying with the reunification plan . . . is not determinative”; the question is whether the parent has gained the capacity to safely parent. (In re Dustin R., supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at p. 1143.) The juvenile court also properly considered mother’s living situation. Mother refused to provide information necessary for the Department to assess individuals in her household, including “Ms. Bella” and “Adrian”—an individual mother identified as her primary support despite his criminal and dependency history. The court could reasonably view the presence of unassessed adults—and mother’s resistance to basic safety vetting—as an ongoing risk factor. (In re John V. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1201, 1212.) The court was also entitled to consider mother’s overall circumstances, including her pregnancy and the difficulty she had keeping up with the children. Mother acknowledged she was “not as quick as she used to be” and had previously expressed uncertainty about her ability to care for three young children.

10 While these factors alone would not justify a detriment finding, they were relevant in assessing her present ability to safely supervise two very young children with significant needs. Mother challenges the trial court’s ruling with three arguments. First, she emphasizes her consistent visitation, completion of a parenting program, and the bond she shares with her children. The juvenile court expressly acknowledged this progress and found it “substantial.” But progress, even significant progress, does not mandate a return of the children where substantial evidence supports a finding of ongoing risk. Second, mother claims her children were never at risk of harm or needed medical intervention during the visitation incidents. To the extent mother relies on counsel’s characterization of her participation in services, the juvenile court was entitled to rely on the documentary and testimonial evidence before it. The record speaks for itself, and the absence of serious injury does not compel a different result. The statutory standard focuses on risk of detriment, not actual harm. (§ 366.21, subd. (f)(1).) The court could reasonably conclude that repeated access to potentially harmful substances by a child known to ingest nonedible items posed a substantial risk, even if harm was averted on those occasions. Third and lastly, mother argues there was no evidence that either “Ms. Bella” or “Adrian” posed a risk to the children because the Department lacked information about them. We are not persuaded by a parent’s reliance on the absence of evidence when that absence is the product of the parent’s own refusal to provide information or permit assessment. Accepting mother’s position would effectively allow a parent to insulate potentially unsafe individuals from scrutiny—and thereby from the court’s 11 consideration—simply by withholding identifying information. The dependency scheme does not countenance such a result. The court’s concern about mother’s acquaintances was not theoretical. Mother acknowledged that Adrian had a felony conviction and prior dependency history, yet declined to provide information necessary for the Department to evaluate any risk. She likewise failed to facilitate any assessment of “Ms. Bella,” who refused contact with the Department. Under these circumstances, the juvenile court could reasonably view the presence of unassessed adults in mother’s household—and mother’s resistance to basic vetting—as a continuing risk factor. The absence of evidence in this context does not establish safety; it reflects an inability to ensure it.

12 DISPOSITION The juvenile court’s order is affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

KUMAR, J.* We concur:

MOOR, Acting P. J.

KIM (D.), J.

* Retired Judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.