In re D.L. CA4/2

Filed 10/23/26 In re D.L. CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ord ered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO In re D.L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. E088298 RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, (Super.Ct.No. DPIN2500264) Plaintiff and Respondent, OPINION v. J.B., Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Susanne S. Cho, Judge. Affirmed. 1  Sarah Vaona, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Defendant and Appellant. Minh C. Tran, County Counsel, Jamila T. Purnell and Julie Jarvi, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent. Defendant and appellant J.B. (Mother) appeals the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders regarding her son, D.L. (Minor, born December 2012). Minor’s presumed father (Father, who shares the same initials as Minor) is not a party to this appeal. Mother contends that the jurisdictional findings were not supported by substantial evidence because there was no nexus between her conduct and risk of harm to Minor. Mother also contends the dispositional orders, removing Minor from her care and placing him with Father, are not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Minor, Mother, and Minor’s adult half-brother (Brother) were living in a transitional housing shelter in the Palm Springs area. On August 14, 2025, plaintiff and respondent Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) received a 10-day response referral regarding Minor following an incident where Brother hit Mother, Brother was taken on a Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 5150 hold, Mother was “incoherent, delusional, and not making any sense,” and Mother stated that “the police are hitting her through [Brother].” 1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless specified otherwise. 2  DPSS initially attempted to contact Mother on August 20, 2025, and followed up with her repeatedly through various means for three weeks. Mother contacted DPSS on September 9, 2025, and stated that although Brother has mental health issues, he was not physical with her, and that “the police are lying and turning the situation around.” Mother’s case manager at the shelter told DPSS that Mother has made odd statements in the past, but she did not have any concerns about Minor as he appeared clean and did not have any marks or bruises. According to the case manager, Minor was attending school online, and Brother lives in his own unit at the shelter. DPSS interviewed Mother in person on September 11, 2025. Mother denied there being a physical altercation between her and Brother when he was having a mental health episode. She stated she administers Brother his medication but refused to show DPSS the medication and could not articulate what medication Brother takes. Mother told DPSS that it needed “to make an arrest to a male that has been following her and stalking her” and that she contacted the FBI about her stalker. Mother acknowledged making the statement that “ ‘the police are hitting me through my son’s body’ ” but continued to deny any physical dispute between her and Brother. Minor confirmed to DPSS that he saw Brother slap Mother and that Mother did make the comment about the police hitting her through Brother’s body. He stated that Mother did not usually make nonsensical comments, although Mother was constantly talking about somebody stalking her. Minor stated that he did not have contact with Father and had not seen him since 2023. When Mother was asked by DPSS about the 3 fact that Minor said he saw the slap, she minimized the concerns and instead stated that DPSS should arrest her stalker. DPSS interviewed Mother again on October 1, 2025. She stated that she was not bringing Brother into the unit she shared with Minor but was still administering medication to Brother before bedtime while Minor was present, and Brother continued to have frequent contact with the family. Mother then made statements about law enforcement harassing her, that she was being followed by an unknown male, and that “she does not trust anyone named Chris.” DPSS interviewed Brother on October 1, 2025. He confirmed that he slapped Mother. He denied any other physical violence between him and Mother, save for an incident six or seven years prior when he hit her in the leg. Brother said that Mother administers his medication, trazodone, and that Mother may sometimes take some of his medication, but he never witnessed it personally. Brother stated he believed Mother has schizophrenia, as she would make statements about being followed. Brother said that he could read people’s thoughts. DPSS filed a juvenile dependency petition regarding Minor on October 8, 2025. The petition alleged pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b)(1), that Minor had suffered or was at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness as a result of Brother physically assaulting Mother (b-1), Mother’s mental health issues (b-2), Mother neglected the health, safety, and well-being of Minor as he was being exposed to Brother’s untreated mental health issues and residing in multiple homeless shelters (b-3), and Father was not a member of the household and was not providing for Minor (b-4). 4 The petition alleged pursuant to section 300, subdivision (g), that the whereabouts of Father was unknown. Minor was not detained and remained in Mother’s custody. As set forth in an addendum report, on October 16, 2025, DPSS made an unannounced visit to Mother at the shelter. Mother refused to open the door of her unit and yelled through the window to “make an appointment.” The security guard of the shelter attempted to open the door with his key, but Mother held on to the door, which caused the key to break. DPSS met with Mother and Minor on October 22, 2025, in the main area of the shelter. Mother stated there had been no new incidents of domestic violence. Minor was appropriately dressed, stated that he felt safe, did not have any marks or bruises, and said he had no concerns about food, water, or working utilities at home. On October 28, 2025, the juvenile court found that a prima facie showing had been made with respect to Minor coming within the provisions of section 300 and ordered that he would remain in Mother’s care. Mother agreed to submit to a psychological evaluation in order to determine appropriate services. The court specifically ordered Mother to cooperate with DPSS. According to the detention report, DPSS conducted an unannounced visit at the shelter on November 26, 2025. DPSS was informed by the shelter staff that Mother and Minor had left earlier in the morning. When DPSS called the telephone number provided by Mother, a prompt stated that it was the Fresno Police Department’s non-emergency number. DPSS contacted Father and asked him to reach out to Mother. Father reported back that Mother said she did not wish to speak to DPSS until their scheduled meeting 5 the following week, but Minor seemed happy when Father spoke to him briefly. DPSS made numerous attempts to contact Mother in various ways on November 26, 2025, but she did not respond. DPSS conducted another unannounced visit on November 29, 2025. After knocking three times, shelter security used the master key to open the door (as authorized by shelter policy), but Mother pushed herself against the door so it would not open. DPSS and Mother’s shelter case manager attempted to speak with Mother, who became angry, cursed, and raised her voice. The DPSS social worker observed that Mother had “slurred, forced, and delayed speech,” “appeared to have disorganized thoughts,” and was paranoid as she stated DPSS was “involved with her stalker and working an inside job for them.” Mother was also observed to stumble backwards. Mother did permit DPSS to speak with Minor, although the conversation took place just a few feet away from Mother. Minor reported there had been no recent altercations between Mother and Brother, but there had been verbal arguments. When asked for more details, Minor said Mother had yelled at the staff at the shelter a few days ago, just as she was doing at that same moment. Minor again stated that Brother hit Mother previously, but that he had not seen Mother in any altercations with other individuals or Brother before or since. Minor said he did not know Brother’s diagnosis, but when asked if he has the same worry for Mother, he nodded yes. Mother continued to yell and curse at the shelter staff while DPSS was interviewing Minor. When DPSS attempted to speak with Mother, she accused DPSS of lying and being part of “an ‘inside job’ for her stalker,” whom she claimed was a doctor 6 from UCLA. Mother did permit DPSS to inspect her home; however, she remained argumentative and said that “what [they] were doing was illegal.” DPSS asked Mother to complete a saliva drug test in light of her slurring her words and stumbling, and she refused. When asked why her telephone number was directed to the Fresno non- emergency line, Mother blamed her stalker. She refused to verify if she received a text message from the DPSS social worker who was attempting to confirm Mother’s telephone number. The shelter regional manager shared with DPSS that Minor said Mother had been behaving this way since June, when they moved to the shelter. Minor also said that he, Brother, and Mother had been driving around the night prior, “looking at different mailboxes of [Mother’s] in different cities” and did not return home until 5:00 a.m. Minor said this “happens often,” where Mother would drive him around until the early morning to Pasadena, Los Angeles, and Las Vegas. Minor said Mother had been drinking and that his Mother was not a “ ‘normal drunk’ as she does not behave like other who are ‘drunk.’ ” Minor said, “ ‘I want my mom to get help.’ ” While DPSS was speaking with shelter staff, security informed DPSS that Mother and Minor were leaving in a car. Shelter staff contacted law enforcement with the suspicion that Mother was driving under the influence with Minor in the car. Shelter staff shared concerns about Brother saying Mother would use his medication for herself, and that Mother has medication belonging to him in her unit. Shelter staff were also concerned about Minor’s educational needs and Minor being very behind in school. Staff 7 confirmed from their logs that Mother, Brother, and Minor had returned to the shelter earlier that morning at 4:51 a.m. DPSS interviewed Brother, who confirmed that he, Mother, and Minor had been driving around Anaheim and Irvine and that they returned to the shelter at approximately 5:00 a.m. Brother said Mother may have been drinking. Brother said he has concerns about Mother’s mental health and her behavior. Brother stated Mother has taken his medication, trazodone. Brother said that he understood DPSS was involved because he and Mother were arguing as Mother became “ ‘disrespectful’ ” and he confirmed that he had hit Mother. Brother denied that he had mental health issues but stated that he has red eyes. When asked to explain what he meant by that, Brother touched his forehead and said that “they are red eyes that have been given to him as a blessing” and “help him understand and see things that other people cannot.” He stated that although he tries to keep his distance from Mother and ignore the things she will say, “ ‘if [Mother] is disrespectful … I mean no one will allow disrespect.’ ” On December 1, 2025, Father told DPSS he had not been physically involved with Minor’s care for approximately the past five years but spoke to Minor over the phone. Father said that if Minor needed to live with him, he would take him. Father stated that he always wanted Minor to live with him and be part of his life, but he was unable to do so because of medical issues. He was now able to care for Minor. On December 2, 2025, DPSS held a team meeting with Mother. She minimized the concerns presented by DPSS. When the DPSS social worker raised the concerns from November 29, 2025, regarding Mother slurring her words, making aggressive 8 statements, and occasionally losing her balance, Mother called the social worker “rude,” said the social worker was not telling the truth, repeatedly and aggressively demanded an apology, accused DPSS of being “ ‘in cahoots’ ” with a doctor she formerly worked with at UCLA, accused the social worker of “posting to social media about lies made against her, involving her stalker,” alleged that she was going to have a number of law enforcement officers arrested, and said that “no individuals by the name of Chris are allowed around her child.” DPSS could not redirect Mother and ended the meeting because it was not productive. DPSS obtained a protective custody warrant to remove Minor from Mother on December 2, 2025, following the meeting with Mother. After DPSS left the shelter with Minor, Mother called the DPSS social worker and stated that what they did was illegal. Mother was offered the opportunity to speak with Minor on speakerphone, and she immediately told Minor, “ ‘these people are evil, and they are lying. They had no reason to take you from me. [Minor], they are bad people.’ ” Mother was warned not to discuss the case or make such comments to Minor; however, she continued to make the same type of statements, so DPSS ended the call. Minor did not appear to be upset about being removed from Mother’s care. Father accepted care and custody of Minor. DPSS conducted an inspection of Father’s home before leaving Minor with Father, and confirmed that there were appropriate sleeping arrangements, food in the house, and all utilities in working order. DPSS filed an amended petition on December 4, 2025, reflecting Minor as detained from Mother but not Father. The amended petition added allegations that 9 Mother abused trazodone and alcohol (b-5) and that Mother interfered with the ability of DPSS to ensure Minor’s safety and well-being (b-6). The allegation regarding Father’s whereabouts being unknown was stricken. The juvenile court held the detention hearing on December 5, 2025. Minor’s counsel reported that Minor was transitioning well to Father’s care. The court found that a prima facie showing was made sufficient to remove Minor from Mother’s care and custody, and granted Mother two hours of supervised visitation per week. Mother was permitted to speak on the record, where she made a lengthy statement about her stalker and having “officers … constantly stalking me for him,” and repeatedly said that “You guys lied.” The court then concluded the hearing and asked Mother multiple times to leave the courtroom as she continued to argue. The courtroom sheriff’s deputy stepped in to ask Mother to leave the courtroom, and the court informed Mother she was going to be forcibly removed and possibly arrested if she did not leave the courtroom. The psychological evaluation regarding Mother was completed on December 11, 2025. Mother told the evaluator that she had called 911 in the past “because the police were stalking her” and looking for her and the children. The evaluator opined that Mother has “a delusional disorder that is fairly well established” and noted that treatment of people with delusional disorders is difficult because they do not believe they have delusions. The evaluator stated that Mother “needs to be seeing a psychiatrist” and “probably needs to be on antipsychotic medication,” which he feared she would not take voluntarily. The evaluator recommended that neither Minor nor Brother reside with Mother “until she accepts the fact that she needs psychiatric care,” that Mother have 10 supervised visits with Minor, and that visits should stop “if her behavior becomes outrageous or she begins to start talking about him being stolen away.” As set forth in the jurisdiction report, DPSS interviewed Mother again on December 19, 2025. When asked about the incidents in August and November 2025, Mother said that nothing happened and that the DPSS interviewer was lying about the incidents. DPSS asked Mother about her mental health, and Mother responded that “ ‘They just recognize me and want to retaliate.’ ” When asked who she was referring to when she said “they,” she said, “the officers” or her “previous coworkers from UCLA.” Mother claimed that Brother was receiving treatment for his mental health, and when asked how Brother’s mental health episodes affect Minor, she responded, “ ‘that’s why I want them arrested, that’s why I need you guys to arrest him.’ ” With respect to the concerns about Mother’s substance use, she denied taking Brother’s trazodone, accused DPSS again of “ ‘making this shit up,’ ” refused to answer questions about whether she had been drinking the night prior to November 29, 2025, and said, “ ‘it was Black Friday. I’m not a kid and I can do what I want.’ ” She did admit to returning to the shelter at 5:00 a.m., but denied that DPSS ever spoke to Minor. “At this point in the interview, [Mother] continued to rant about each officer that is going to be arrested for abusing her, and that [DPSS] needs to stop lying about her. She used foul language and yelled loudly enough that the case manager was contacted by security at the [shelter].” Mother also denied evading DPSS during the current investigation and accused DPSS of harassing her. 11  Minor’s court appointed special advocate (CASA) submitted a report on December 29, 2025. Father reported to the CASA that Mother called Minor almost daily and “tells [Minor] that he has been illegally kidnapped by DPSS.” Father was enthusiastic about how much he loved having Minor with him and praised Minor. At the January 5, 2026, jurisdiction hearing, Father (who appeared telephonically) confirmed he was attempting at that very moment to enroll Minor in regular, in-person school. The juvenile court ordered that all of Mother’s telephone calls with Minor would be supervised, and Mother would continue to have two hours per week of supervised visitation. As set forth in the disposition report filed on January 30, 2026, Mother claimed that Father was sexually abusing Minor. Minor denied any abuse, neglect, or other concerns arising from living with Father. The disposition report also reflected the results of a search in the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) for Mother’s criminal record, which included a conviction in 2020 for misdemeanor driving under the influence with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 percent or more (Vehicle Code § 23152, subd. (b)). The juvenile court held the contested jurisdiction hearing on February 4, 2026. The court found the allegations regarding Mother (b-1, b-2, b-3, b-5, and b-6) to be true, and found the allegation regarding Father (b-4) to be not true. Minor’s counsel noted that Minor was severely behind academically, and that there were some medical issues that were being discovered now as Minor had not been to the doctor in several years. 12  The juvenile court reduced Mother’s visitation with Minor to one hour every other week, with the option to extend the visit by an additional hour. The reduction was due to the significant distance between Mother and Father’s residences and the strain on Minor resulting from the travel time. The court specifically ordered that Minor would not be forced to attend visitation in light of his age and emotional issues. Mother was ordered to undergo a second psychological evaluation to determine if she would benefit from services. Mother interjected during the hearing to ask to dismiss the case and stated, “I think it’s totally dishonest. I’ve been watching you guys make it up, and I call it perjury at this point.” She repeated that she felt “you guys” lied, and that “you guys need to remove my son from the father and give him back to me.” The court advised Mother that she needed to attend another psychological evaluation, and that if she did not follow through, then it would be used against her in the future. After Mother continued to interrupt, the court ordered her to be escorted out of the courtroom and suggested that Father and Minor may need a restraining order. Mother’s counsel stated that he would likely ask the court to appoint a guardian ad litem for Mother based on “what we witnessed today.” As set forth in the addendum report filed on March 27, 2026, Minor told DPSS that his visits with Mother were “ ‘okay’ ” and they “ ‘hardly talk.’ ” Minor denied any physical discipline, denied Father used drugs or alcohol, and denied any sexual abuse. DPSS conducted an unannounced visit to Father’s home on February 6, 2026. The home had appropriate sleeping arrangements, plenty of food, and working utilities. Father disclosed that Minor had been prescribed some medication for a cough and that 13 the two of them were monitoring his blood pressure twice per day. Father later described additional doctor’s appointments scheduled for Minor to follow up on his health issues. During Mother’s supervised visit with Minor on February 10, 2026, she started to talk to him about the case and how she did nothing wrong. DPSS told her that she was not allowed to speak about the case and that the visit would be cancelled if she did it again. Mother said goodbye to Minor and left. Mother’s other supervised visits with Minor leading up to the dispositional hearing were described by DPSS as “mostly silent.” On March 4, 2026, Mother sent a text message to DPSS that said, “ ‘Please report the father for child neglect and child abuse for introducing sexual acts with my son …. Please go ahead and arrest the father for sexual acts done to [Minor]. I don’t need you acting stupid…. Return [Minor] and attempt to close and exit [the] case, with me. Get it over with.’ ” On March 18, 2026, Minor’s CASA emailed DPSS with Minor’s grades, which were generally good. But later that evening, Minor’s CASA contacted DPSS to state that Minor “ ‘is having a bit of a melt down [sic].’ ” The next day, Father reported to DPSS that Minor was bullied at school, he was upset with Father for addressing it with the school, Father asked him to take a break from his iPad, and Minor became angry and he yelled at Father for ruining his life and said he wanted to kill himself. Father took this seriously and contacted the 988 crisis hotline. Father confirmed with DPSS that he had already reached out to a psychiatry office to obtain services for Minor and that he was keeping a close eye on Minor. 14  On multiple occasions after Mother’s supervised visits with Minor, DPSS reminded Mother of the court’s order that she undergo a second psychological evaluation. On March 24, 2026, DPSS confirmed with the psychological evaluator that Mother had not been scheduled for her second evaluation despite repeated attempts by the evaluator to contact her. Mother called the psychological evaluator on March 25, 2026, and tried to schedule an evaluation before the hearing that was scheduled for April 2, 2026, which the evaluator could not accommodate. The evaluator then reported that she had a cancellation for March 31, 2026, which she would offer to Mother. The contested dispositional hearing was held on April 2, 2026. Mother’s counsel requested appointment of a guardian ad litem for Mother, which request the juvenile court denied after questioning Mother about her understanding of the proceedings. Mother did not complete the second psychological evaluation; her counsel claimed that Mother called the evaluator’s office four times on March 31 and never had her calls answered or returned. The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence the circumstances set forth in section 361, subdivision (c)(1), for Minor to be removed from Mother. Pursuant to section 361.2, subdivision (b)(1), the court found placement with Father to not be detrimental, ordered Father to become the legal and physical custodian of Minor with reasonable visitation to Mother, and ordered dependency jurisdiction to be terminated upon filing of the custody orders. Mother’s visits were ordered for two hours every other month at the shelter, supervised by a mutually agreeable third party and transportation for 15 Minor provided by Father. On the alternate months, Mother would be obligated to set up visitation at a mutually agreed-upon location closer to Father’s residence. Mother was permitted to address the court after the orders were pronounced. She spoke at length and stated, “I feel that you guys are dishonest and lying about it,” that Minor was “stolen” and “kidnapped” from her “to purposely child molest my kid,” and stated that she wanted to press charges against Father for sexual abuse, neglect, and not feeding Minor. Mother timely appealed. DISCUSSION A. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS Section 300, subdivision (b), provides in relevant part that a child is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court where the child “has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness, as a result of . . . [t]he failure or inability of the child’s parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child.” The statute accordingly requires three elements: “(1) neglectful conduct by the parent in one of the specified forms; (2) causation; and (3) ‘serious physical harm or illness’ to the minor, or a ‘substantial risk’ of such harm or illness.” (In re Rocco M. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 814, 820, abrogated in part by In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 629- 633, (R.T.), which held that the first element did not require parental fault.) “The court need not wait until a child is seriously abused or injured to assume jurisdiction and take steps necessary to protect the child.” (In re N.M. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 159, 165, disapproved on other grounds by Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1010-1012 (O.B.).) “A parent’s past conduct is a good predictor of future 16 behavior.” (In re T.V. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 126, 133.) However, there “must be some reason beyond mere speculation to believe the alleged conduct will recur.” (In re James R. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 129, 136.) The juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. (R.T., supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 633.) Where there is substantial evidence supporting the findings and orders, “we affirm the order even if other evidence supports a contrary conclusion.” (In re N.M., supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 168.) Allegations b-1 and b-3 are related as they involve the physical assault between Brother and Mother, and Mother exposing Minor to Brother’s untreated mental health issues. Brother admitted to slapping Mother, Minor stated that he witnessed the slap, and Brother was taken on a 5150 hold following the incident. Mother nevertheless repeatedly denied that any physical incident took place between her and Brother. “Exposure to domestic violence may support jurisdiction under subdivision (b)(1) of section 300…. Jurisdiction is appropriate since a minor can be ‘put in a position of physical danger from this violence, since, for example, they could wander into the room where it was occurring and be accidentally hit by a thrown object, by a fist, arm, foot or leg.’ ” (In re L.O. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 227, 238.) The juvenile court may invoke its jurisdiction “even if a child has emerged physically unscathed from an instance of domestic violence.” (Id. at p. 239.) However, there must be “evidence that the violence is ongoing or likely to continue.” (In re Daisy H. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 713, 717, disapproved on another ground by In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 278.) 17  In this instance, Mother’s continued denial of any incident occurring between her and Brother is a significant point of concern that there is likely to be a recurrence of violence. “[D]enial is a factor often relevant to determining whether persons are likely to modify their behavior in the future without court supervision.” (In re A.F. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 283, 293.) Mother argues on appeal that there was no risk of harm to Minor because Brother does not reside in the same housing unit as Mother and Minor. Although that may be true, Brother lives in the same shelter and continues to have daily contact with Mother because she chooses to administer his medication to him, and Mother admitted that prior to removal, Minor continued to be present when the medication was given. Brother stated that although he tried to keep his distance from Mother and ignore what she would say, “ ‘no one will allow disrespect.’ ” Mother could not articulate a plan on how to keep Minor safe. These circumstances give sufficient reason to believe that there is a likelihood of violence continuing between Mother and Brother arising from Brother’s mental health issues, supporting the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings regarding allegations b-1 and b-3. Additionally, allegation b-3 broadly stated that Mother neglected the health, safety, and well-being of Minor. Mother argues that she sufficiently provided for Minor’s “nourishment, hygiene, and education.” However, after Minor was placed into Father’s custody, it was discovered that he was very behind academically and had unaddressed health issues after not being seen by a doctor for several years. The risks to Minor’s health present a physical risk of harm; therefore, this provides further evidence in support of the b-3 allegation. 18  Our analysis with respect to jurisdiction could end here, as we have found substantial evidence supports at least one of the jurisdictional findings. (In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 451 [“When a dependency petition alleges multiple grounds for its assertion that a minor comes within the dependency court’s jurisdiction, a reviewing court can affirm the juvenile court’s finding of jurisdiction over the minor if any one of the statutory bases for jurisdiction that are enumerated in the petition is supported by substantial evidence”].) However, we address the other jurisdictional findings because they also serve as the basis for the dispositional orders that Mother is challenging here. (See D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 283.) Mother’s mental health issues and substance use issues are both implicated in the November 29, 2025, incident. Mother drove Minor and Brother around until 5:00 a.m. Minor said this would happen “often” and would involve driving from Palm Springs to Los Angeles, Pasadena, or Las Vegas. Brother stated that the family had, in this instance, been driving around Irvine and Anaheim. Minor stated that Mother had been drinking. On the same day that Mother, Brother, and Minor returned to the shelter at 5:00 a.m., DPSS witnessed Mother slurring her words and stumbling backwards, and Mother refused to take a saliva drug test. This was in addition to Mother physically blocking shelter staff from entering her unit (for the second time during the investigation), and yelling and cursing at both shelter staff and DPSS. Mother was then seen driving away from the shelter with Minor in the car. Mother “often” driving Minor around Southern California, and as far as Las Vegas, until the early hours of the morning while visibly 19 impaired certainly presents an ongoing risk to Minor’s physical safety, supporting the juvenile court’s assertion of jurisdiction pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b)(1). Mother argues that there were no positive drug tests or reports of concern from third parties regarding her use of trazodone or alcohol. However, “[e]vidence from a single witness … can be sufficient to support the trial court’s findings.” (In re Alexis E., supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at p. 451.) Additionally, substantial evidence may consist of inferences that are the product of logic and reason based on the evidence in the record. (In re Savannah M. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1393, abrogated on other grounds by R.T., supra, 3 Cal.5th 622.) In this instance, Minor stated that Mother was drinking on the night of November 29, 2025. Minor also said Mother is not a “ ‘normal drunk.’ ” One can logically infer from this comment that Minor was familiar enough with Mother’s drinking habits to have an idea of how Mother acted while drunk as compared to a “normal drunk.” In addition to these statements from Minor, Brother stated that Mother had taken his trazodone in the past, Mother confirmed that she had possession of Brother’s trazodone and insisted on controlling his dosage, and the DPSS social worker personally observed Mother slurring her words and stumbling on the day of an unannounced visit. In our analysis, we are to draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the juvenile court’s findings and orders. (R.T., supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 633.) All of the foregoing facts taken together provide a reasonable inference supporting the finding that Mother has a substance abuse issue regarding alcohol and trazodone as set forth in allegation b-5. 20  As for Mother’s mental health, she was assessed by a psychological evaluator as having a delusion disorder. The delusions and Mother’s mental health were an issue throughout the proceedings. Nearly every interaction between Mother and DPSS or the juvenile court involved Mother claiming that her stalker, or “the officers” working with her stalker, were controlling the proceedings or conspiring against her. Mother repeatedly denied having any mental health issues and insisted that DPSS was lying, or deflected to talking about her stalker. Mother had aggressive verbal confrontations with DPSS and shelter staff in front of Minor, which Minor stated had been an ongoing problem since at least June 2025. Mother’s conduct at the various court hearings, which led to her being escorted out of the courtroom and her attorney requesting the appointment of a guardian ad litem, demonstrated an inability to control her behavior even in front of the court. These facts, taken together, reasonably raise concerns about potential risk of physical harm to Minor. “It is not necessary for [the child welfare agency] or the juvenile court to precisely predict what harm will come to [the minors] because [the mother] has failed to consistently treat her illness. Rather, it is sufficient that [the mother’s] illness and choices create a substantial risk of some serious physical harm or illness.” (In re Travis C. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1219,1226-1227.) We find there is substantial evidence to support allegation b-2 regarding Mother’s mental health. Finally, allegation b-6 provides that Mother was not compliant with the juvenile court’s orders to make Minor available, which interfered with DPSS’s ability to ensure his safety and well-being. Mother argues that a parent’s failure to voluntarily cooperate with DPSS does not justify court intervention. Although the juvenile court in this 21 instance specifically ordered Mother to make Minor available to DPSS for its investigation, it is generally true that a parent’s participation in the child welfare agency’s investigation is voluntary. (In re E.E. (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 195, 209.) However, “[t]hat’s not to say there are no consequences for failing to cooperate in the investigation or participate in services. One consequence is that those failures ‘can be used later as evidence in a review hearing or a hearing on a [section 300] petition.’ ” (Id. at p. 209.) In this instance, Mother was uncooperative during all three attempts by DPSS to conduct an unannounced visit. One attempt ended with the shelter security guard’s key being broken because Mother was physically blocking her door from being opened, one ended with Mother and Minor not being home and Mother ignoring all attempts by DPSS to contact her, and one ended with Mother again physically blocking her door from being opened and then yelling and cursing at DPSS and shelter staff in front of Minor. Mother’s team meeting with DPSS devolved into her accusing DPSS of lying and working with her stalker, and she could not be redirected to the relevant issues. Substantial evidence supports the b-6 allegation. B. DISPOSITIONAL ORDERS Section 361, subdivision (c)(1), provides that a child may be taken from the physical custody of his or her parents where the juvenile court finds clear and convincing evidence that there “is or would be a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being” of the child if returned home and “there are no reasonable means by which the minor’s physical health can be protected without removing the minor” from his or her parent’s physical custody. “We review a 22 dispositional order removing a child from a parent for substantial evidence, ‘keeping in mind that the trial court was required to make its order based on the higher standard of clear and convincing evidence.’” (In re M.V. (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 944, 960.) “[W]hen reviewing a finding that a fact has been proved by clear and convincing evidence, the question before the appellate court 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. Consistent with well-established principles governing review for sufficiency of the evidence, in making this assessment the ap