In re David L. CA1/2

Filed 10/22/26 In re David L. CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO In re DAVID L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. ALAMEDA COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, A176528 v. D.L., (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. JD04086801) Defendant and Appellant. D.L. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s dispositional order removing her 7-year-old son David L. (Minor) from her custody. She claims substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court’s finding that clear and convincing evidence supported removal. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Circumstances Leading to Detention Minor was born in 2018. During the events described below, Minor lived with Mother and his maternal grandmother and maternal great- grandmother in a house in Livermore. The family home was a known drug house for decades, where different individuals have been arrested for 1 methamphetamine possession or for selling or manufacturing methamphetamine. On September 20, 2024, the Livermore Police Department discovered an illegal Dimethyltryptamine (DMT) lab in the garage of the family home. DMT is a psychedelic drug similar to psilocybin and LSD and is a schedule 1 controlled substance. On April 10, 2025, the Livermore Police Department served a search warrant at the home. The DMT lab remained operational in the garage. The police found evidence of drug sales and more than 31 grams of methamphetamine in Mother’s bedroom. Mother was at the residence during the search and was arrested. In early February 2026, the Alameda County Social Services Agency (Agency) received a referral related to the family home raising concerns that drugs were being manufactured in the home where Minor resided. It was reported that Mother and the maternal grandmother were manufacturing DMT and using and selling DMT, Oxycodone, methamphetamine, and cocaine in the garage of the family home. On February 12, 2026, Livermore Police served another search warrant at the family home. The warrant was obtained, in part, to ensure the safety of Minor. The police found 5.58 grams of methamphetamine and methamphetamine pipes and a methamphetamine bong in Mother’s bedroom. They again found a DMT lab, including requisite chemicals used to make DMT, in the garage along with numerous rounds of various ammunition. Minor was home at the time of the search and had access to the DMT lab. At the conclusion of the February 12, 2026, search, Minor was physically removed and subsequently placed in a foster care small family home. 2 Detention Hearing On February 17, 2026, the Agency filed a dependency petition on behalf of Minor pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1).1 The petition alleged Minor had suffered, or was at risk of suffering serious, physical harm based on allegations that the “Livermore Police Department discovered a methamphetamine manufacturing lab in the garage of the family home” and “methamphetamines and other substances in the home were left in an unsecured area of the garage that is accessible to the Minor, . . . (7) leaving him at risk of serious physical injury, illness or possible death.” 2 The Agency recommended that Minor be detained. In its detention report filed February 18, 2026, the Agency reported that, during a “routine welfare check” of the family home, the “Livermore Police Department discovered an active methamphetamine manufacturing lab in the garage.” It was noted that the family home had a “significant criminal and substance involved history” for over 27 years. Mother, and several other convicted felons who were present at the home, were arrested. At the February 18 detention hearing, the juvenile court found that the Agency established a prima facie showing that Minor was described by 1 The original petition also included an allegation under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (g), which was deleted in an amended petition. All further statutory references are to this code unless otherwise noted. 2 We note that throughout the proceeding, the Agency referred to the illegal drug manufacturing operation at the family home as “a methamphetamine lab.” However, the police reports document the lab manufactured DMT. The distinction is immaterial to our analysis as both involve the dangerous manufacture of illegal drugs. Our substantial evidence analysis includes consideration of a DMT lab, not a methamphetamine lab. 3 section 300, and that the initial removal of Minor from Mother’s home was necessary as there were “no reasonable means to protect the child’s physical or emotional health without removing the child from the parent’s physical custody.” Jurisdictional Hearing In its jurisdictional/disposition report filed March 10, 2026, the Agency recommended that Minor be declared a dependent of the juvenile court, and that Mother receive family reunification services. The report detailed Mother’s prior child welfare history, and the Child Welfare Worker’s (CWW) investigation including conversations with Mother and Minor. As to Mother’s prior child welfare history, the Agency investigated allegations of general neglect in 2024 after it learned, related to the first time the Livermore police discovered the DMT lab on September 20, 2024, that a hazmat team entered the family home, where Mother and Minor resided, and seized substances from the garage. The CWW spoke to Mother. Mother denied the allegations that there was a drug manufacturing lab found in the garage of the family home. She stated that “there was no indication of any drug manufacturing lab in the home.” Mother told the CWW that another Agency worker had gone to the family home two weeks before Minor was detained and did not find anything that would suggest drugs were manufactured in the home. Mother admitted to the CWW that she knew when drugs are being manufactured, there is a distinct smell, but there was no such smell present at the family home. Mother stated her belief that law enforcement falsified evidence that the family had a history of drug manufacturing. Mother claimed that Minor was “never in any immediate danger,” and that he should not have been detained. 4  The jurisdiction/disposition report detailed the Agency’s concerns, including that Mother, the father, and the maternal grandmother had a long history of substance use, and that law enforcement described the family home as a known drug house. The Agency stated its belief that Mother had knowledge of the illegal substance-related activities that had occurred in the home (as evidenced by Mother’s and the maternal grandmother’s prior involvement with law enforcement and the large amount of substances in Mother’s room accessible to Minor) and that, despite Mother’s knowledge, she continued to subject Minor to the dangerous conditions of the home. At the jurisdictional hearing on March 11, 2026, the Agency’s counsel informed the court that the CWW had received a concerning email from Minor’s caregiver. The email provided that the visitation supervisor was supervising a telephone visit between Minor and Mother, and overheard Mother tell Minor that the CWW is “mean” and that Minor should “not say certain things to the Agency.” Minor’s counsel followed up and provided that Minor made very inappropriate comments in response to Mother’s “coach[ing].” Mother disagreed with the Agency’s recommendations and requested a hearing. The court set a jurisdiction/disposition hearing for April 27, 2026. On April 27, 2026, the Agency filed an addendum report and an amended petition.3 The addendum report recommended again that Minor remain in out of home care, and that Mother receive family reunification services. The addendum report noted that Mother checked herself into a recovery center, called Second Chance, on March 23, 2026, but left the 3 The amended petition added allegations related to the father that are not relevant to this appeal. The allegations against Mother were substantively the same as those in the original petition. 5 program the next day and did not return until April 1, 2026. Upon her return, Mother tested positive for amphetamines/methamphetamines on April 3, 2026. Mother had also no-showed two scheduled visits with Minor and did not provide any communication with the Agency regarding her no-shows until several days later. The CWW followed up with Mother and asked that she contact the visitation center directly about her visits with Minor. Several days passed, and the visitation center contacted the CWW to inform her that Mother had not made any contact about visitation, and that Mother frequently changed her availability, which made it difficult for the visitation center to schedule Mother’s visits with Minor. When telephone visits did occur, the visitation center reported that “the relational dynamic between [Mother] and the minor presented with notable role confusion.” The visitation center’s report detailed that Minor “assumed a more responsible and emotionally aware position within the interaction, at times appearing to hold [Mother] accountable to her statements and behaviors, including questioning inconsistencies and seeking clarification regarding her follow-through.” These interactions appeared to negatively impact Minor, as he presented as emotionally dysregulated. The report further provided that Minor demonstrated a pattern of attempting to process and make sense of adult level information while simultaneously managing his own emotional responses, and that the observed dynamic between Mother and Minor appeared to place an undue emotional burden on Minor, which limited his ability to engage in age-appropriate experiences. The addendum report also noted that on April 16, 2026, the CWW received a cease and desist letter in the mail demanding that the CWW stop her investigation into Minor’s removal and return him to Mother at the 6 family home. The cease and desist was signed by Mother and the maternal grandmother. The Agency included in its addendum report that it continued to be worried about Mother’s ongoing substance use, involvement in drug manufacturing and selling, and Mother’s ability to keep herself and Minor away from the family home where such activities occurred. Contested Disposition The matter came on calendar for the contested hearing on April 27, 2026. Since the Agency had filed that day the addendum report and Amended Petition, the court granted father’s request to continue the hearing. The hearing was continued to May 14, 2026.4 The juvenile court held the contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing on May 14, 2026. The February 18, 2026, detention report, March 11, 2026, jurisdictional report with attachments, and the April 27, 2026, addendum with attachments were all admitted into evidence. The CWW testified and provided a brief history of the family as well as the events that led to Minor being detained. The CWW stated that the first police report she received with Mother’s name on it was from 2019. In that year, law enforcement searched the family home and found methamphetamine inside the home. The CWW explained that the family home has a long-standing, substance- related history, including that local law enforcement stated that the family home is known as a drug house. During the most recent event, law enforcement again found methamphetamine in the family home. Law enforcement located in the garage of the family home what appeared to be a 4 On May 8, 2026, the Agency filed another Amended Petition that does not impact our analysis. 7 DMT manufacturing lab and 200 rounds of ammunition. Glass methamphetamine pipes were located in Mother’s room. The CWW testified that Minor had access to the unlocked garage, as well as Mother’s room. After Minor was detained, Mother told the CWW that she did not use methamphetamine consistently and had only used “on and off.” However, the CWW learned that Mother had been using methamphetamine between March 23, 2026, and April 1, 2026, as Mother tested positive for amphetamines/methamphetamines in the beginning of April. The CWW then testified as to Mother’s engagement with the Agency and her case plan over the course of the 43 days since Mother had been engaged in treatment. As to Mother’s engagement with the Agency, the CWW stated that her communication with Mother, thus far, had been limited and minimal, as Mother “shut down,” or hung up the phone on the CWW during calls. The CWW explained that she often learns about updates regarding Mother through “other people,” rather than Mother. As to Mother’s engagement with her case plan, the CWW acknowledged the positive steps toward reunification that Mother had taken, such as her moving out of the family home into Second Chance and committing to substance use treatment. However, the CWW explained that the Agency is looking for consistency from Mother over a prolonged period of time, and the Agency had not yet seen that consistency. The CWW highlighted that the Agency still had concerns which included, Mother’s inconsistent (and sometimes negative) communication with the CWW and service providers, such as the visitation center; Mother’s minimization of the events that led to Minor being detained; Mother’s continual allowance of substances in the family home despite prior 8 arrests and despite law enforcement’s discoveries of methamphetamines in the home over the course of a decade; Mother’s disparaging statements to Minor about the father; Minor’s emotionally negative responses to visits with Mother and the maternal grandmother; and Mother’s recent positive substance tests—which indicate that Mother had used amphetamines/ methamphetamines as recently as a month before the contest date. The CWW testified that the Agency was looking for change over time from Mother, over a period longer than 43 days, so that it could ensure that Mother is fully committed to sobriety. The CWW elaborated further that the cease and desist letter she received did not make her feel confident that Mother was committed to maintaining her sobriety and her “new way of life” if Minor were to be returned to her at the time of the hearing, as the cease and desist was received barely two months into the case and Mother maintained that Minor was never in any immediate danger. The CWW was concerned that if Minor were to be returned to Mother’s care, there would be no requirement that she stay at Second Chance, that she continue to drug test, or that she engage in any other part of her case plan. The court acknowledged the progress that Mother had already made but reiterated that 43 “days is still early when you think about the whole period of time that this has had an impact on your life.” The court expressed its concerns about the relationship between Mother and Minor, and the manner in which Mother interacted with the Agency. The court found the allegations in the amended petition to be true, declared that Minor came within section 300, subdivision (b)(1), and found his return to Mother’s physical custody would cause a substantial danger to his physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being. The juvenile court 9 found that Mother had made partial progress towards alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating removal and ordered reunification services for the parents. Mother was granted supervised visitation with Minor, as frequently as possible, and the Agency was granted discretion to move to unsupervised visits if appropriate. DISCUSSION Mother contends the evidence was insufficient to support the juvenile courts’ dispositional finding that clear and convincing evidence supported removal. She specifically claims the evidence was insufficient to establish that “ ‘[there] is or would be a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection or physical or emotional well-being of the minor if the minor were returned home, and there are no reasonable means by which the minor’s physical health can be protected without removing the minor from the minor’s parent’s or guardian’s physical custody.’ ” Mother’s argument centers on her claim that she accepted services that show Minor would not be at risk in her care and that the evidence does not support a finding that no reasonable means exist to protect the minor without removal. Mother’s arguments fail and we shall affirm. A. Legal Principles On appeal, a juvenile court’s removal order is reviewed “for substantial evidence ‘ “bearing in mind the heightened burden of proof.” ’ ” (In re L.O. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 227, 245.) Where the applicable standard is clear and convincing evidence, the question “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.” (Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1011.) 10  “ ‘[W]here the findings are attacked for insufficiency of the evidence, our power begins and ends with a determination as to whether there is any substantial evidence to support them; that we have no power to judge the effect or value of the evidence, to weigh the evidence, to consider the credibility of the witnesses, or to resolve conflicts in the evidence or in the reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom.’ ” (In re Stephen W. (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 629, 642.) As a general matter, a child may not be removed from the home in which they reside at the time of the Agency’s petition unless there is clear and convincing evidence of a substantial danger to the child’s physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being and there are no reasonable means by which the child can be protected without removal. (§ 361, subd. (c); In re Jasmine G. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 282, 288.) In determining whether a child may safely remain in their parent’s physical custody, the juvenile court may consider the parent’s past conduct, current circumstances, and the parent’s responsiveness to the circumstances that gave rise to the juvenile court’s intervention. (In re D.B. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 320, 332.) “The parent need not be dangerous, and the [child] need not have been actually harmed before removal is appropriate. The focus of the statute is on averting harm to the child.” (In re T.V. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 126,135-136; In re M.D. (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 836, 856.) In evaluating current risk of harm to a child, the juvenile court should consider evidence of a parent’s current understanding and attitude toward the conduct that put the child at risk of harm, and whether there is evidence that the behavior is likely to change. (See In re John M. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1124-1125.) 11 B. Substantial Evidence Supported Removal Mother claims the dispositional order removing Minor from her care must be reversed because there was insufficient evidence of a substantial danger to Minor’s physical or emotional well-being if Minor were returned to her care. She cites evidence that she took steps to protect Minor by disinfecting the home, entering Second Chance Recovery Center, creating a relapse prevention plan, reportedly attending 12-step meetings, and gaining employment. We disagree. The juvenile court reasonably found there was clear and convincing evidence of a substantial danger to Minor’s physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being, with no reasonable means to protect Minor without removal from Mother. The court’s findings are supported by the record. Mother repeatedly exposed Minor to a longstanding illegal drug manufacturing operation in the garage of his home to which he had access. She continually exposed Minor to the chemicals associated with drug manufacturing, and to drug paraphernalia. She minimized, and failed to realize, the risk that these conditions posed to Minor’s safety and well-being. Mother used illicit substances and stored large quantities of those substances in her room, which were also accessible to Minor. Mother tested positive for methamphetamine as recently as April 3, 2026. She was inconsistent with visitation. The evidence showed that Mother’s parenting caused Minor emotional dysregulation and that she was resistant to the Agency’s efforts to address the risks that necessitated Minor’s removal in the first place. In fact, evidence was produced that Mother told Minor not say certain things to the Agency, which put Minor in an untenable position (particularly for a 7 year 12 old) and showed Mother’s lack of insight into protecting Minor’s physical and emotional well-being. Like the juvenile court, we commend Mother for her recent progress, but it was reasonable for the court to determine her nascent efforts did not eliminate the substantial danger to Minor. By the time of the contested hearing date, Mother was in the earliest stages of her recovery. She had lived consistently at Second Chance for 43 days and had been clean of illicit substances for approximately 35 days. Given Mother’s lengthy history of drug use, the court could reasonably conclude that she was in the early stages of recovery and that such a short period of sobriety was insufficient to show real reform. (See In re Ernesto R. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 219, 223; In re Kimberly F. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 519, 531, fn. 9 [“It is the nature of addiction that one must be ‘clean’ for a much longer period than 120 days to show real reform”]; In re Clifton B. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 415, 423–424 [200 days of sobriety not enough].) The court could also reasonably rely on Mother’s minimal engagement with the social worker and her recent cease and desist letter as further evidence that Mother was simply too early in her recovery to have sufficiently ameliorated the danger posed to Minor. On this record, we find sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s dispositional order removing Minor from Mother’s care. DISPOSITION The juvenile court’s dispositional order is affirmed. 13  _________________________ Sweet, J.* WE CONCUR: _________________________ Stewart, P. J. _________________________ Richman, J. A176528, Alameda County Social Services Agency v. D.L. * Judge of the Marin County Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. 14