In re E.A. CA2/3

Filed 10/26/26 In re E.A. CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE In re E.A. et al., Persons Coming B351173 Under the Juvenile Court Law. Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. Nos. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 25CCJP01422A, AND FAMILY SERVICES, 25CCJP01422B Plaintiff and Respondent, v. G.B., Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Sally Espinoza, 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, William D. Thetford, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________  Mother challenges the juvenile court’s orders sustaining a supplemental petition under section 387 of the Welfare and Institutions Code1 and removing her children E.A. and Z.M. from her custody. We conclude substantial evidence supported the juvenile court’s orders and affirm. BACKGROUND 1. The family This appeal involves two of mother’s children: E.A. (born January 2011)—whose father is C.A.—and Z.M. (born November 2016)—whose father is R.M.2 Mother and the children lived in maternal grandmother’s home. Mother cared for maternal grandmother, who was receiving home hospice care due to a recent terminal cancer diagnosis, as well as for her adult brother, who has Down Syndrome. Mother’s 22-year-old son also lived in the home, and a second maternal uncle lived in the home part-time. The children’s fathers did not live in the family home. Mother had amicable, informal co-parenting arrangements with each father. Mother had primary physical custody of the children. Father R.M. visited Z.M. at the family home. E.A. went to C.A.’s home daily. He had a room there but preferred to sleep at mother’s home. During the week, C.A. picked E.A. up around 7 a.m. to take him to school and returned him home around 7 p.m. after golf practice. 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 2 The children’s fathers are not parties to this appeal. 2 2. Events leading to dependency On March 16, 2025,3 the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) received a report that people had been going in and out of mother’s residence, and mother and other individuals “hang out in and outside the residence,” smoking PCP-dipped cigarettes and other unknown drugs in the children’s presence. The caller and other neighbors smelled “a strong odor of PCP coming from the mother’s residence.” The caller said mother’s children were running unsupervised around the home, outside the yard, and in the neighborhood. DCFS investigated. a. Initial interviews Mother was not at home when the social worker went to the family home.4 She was on probation for burglary and had gone to see her probation officer. Z.M. was at home with R.M. and maternal grandmother. Maternal grandmother was lying on a hospital bed in the living room.5 R.M. and maternal grandmother denied the caller’s allegations. To R.M.’s knowledge, no one did drugs in the home. Maternal grandmother and mother’s adult son—with whom the social worker also spoke that day—denied any drug use or domestic violence in the home. Neither had any concerns about mother. C.A., during a later interview at his home, also told the social worker that to his knowledge no drugs or alcohol were used in mother’s home. 3 All dates are in 2025 unless otherwise noted. 4 DCFS did not locate the family home until April 7 due to receiving a wrong address from the caller. 5 She was paralyzed from the waist down. 3 C.A. had no safety concerns—if he did, he wouldn’t let his son live with mother. Z.M., who was then in the second grade, told the social worker “she knows her mom smokes something” that smells “nasty.” She said she had seen mother smoking something in the bathroom and that mother had told her to get out of the bathroom when she’s smoking. Z.M. said her parents “act normal after smoking.” Z.M. said she felt safe and happy at home, and mother was “a great ‘mother.’ ” She said mother “takes care of her,” and “cooks for her.” Her “favorite thing about her mother is everything.” Z.M. said she always had food and showered every day. Maternal uncle and grandmother also took care of her. Z.M. denied domestic violence and sexual abuse. The social worker interviewed E.A. at his middle school. E.A. said he knew mother smoked cigarettes by their smell. Mother acted normally after smoking. He had not seen mother smoke inside the home. E.A. explained mother’s friends go in and out of the house. They hang out in the garage and talk. He said they did not do drugs. E.A. said he knew what drugs and alcohol were and had not seen his mother do drugs or appear to be under the influence. E.A. felt happy and safe at home. He said his mother took care of him and cooked for him, he had everything he needed, he showered daily, and there always was food available. His favorite thing about mother was “she is nice to him.” On April 16, the social worker met with mother at the family home about the allegations. Mother said her friends come over and watch football every other weekend. She denied doing drugs. When the social worker asked if she smoked PCP (phencyclidine), mother said, “ ‘What’s PCP?’ ” Mother said she 4 smoked only cigarettes. She admitted she used to smoke “weed,” but said she had stopped. She said she had no problems with alcohol and had been sober for four years. Mother denied having any mental health disorders,6 any fighting in the home, and any disclosure of sexual abuse by the children. A playground was in the front yard, which was gated. Mother said the children played in the front, gated, yard, but otherwise did not go outside the home. During its initial investigation, DCFS learned the children were overdue by three or four years for dental and medical exams. The social worker contacted mother about scheduling appointments for the children. C.A. also set up dental and medical appointments for E.A. for June 12. b. Mother’s initial drug testing The social worker submitted a drug testing referral for mother to test on April 18, but she was turned away due to invalid identification. When the social worker tried to call mother on April 21 to reschedule her drug test, mother’s phone number was disconnected.7 With maternal grandmother’s help, the social worker reached mother and rescheduled her 6 At some point in the case, mother reported that, while in jail six or seven months earlier, she was diagnosed with bipolar, schizophrenia, depression, psychosis, and personality disorder. She said she had been prescribed psychotropic medication and Adderall. There is no independent evidence in the record of mother’s diagnoses or prescriptions. 7 E.A. told the social worker mother had “a lot of different phone numbers” and “sometimes breaks her phones,” requiring her to get new ones. 5 on-demand drug test for April 30. On that date, mother asked the social worker to reschedule her test—maternal grandmother’s nurses were not at the home yet and mother did not want to leave her alone. The social worker rescheduled the test to May 1. Mother’s May 1 test was positive for amphetamines, PCP, and methamphetamine.8 The social worker called mother on May 9. Mother started crying. She admitted she last did “meth” at a friend’s party a month earlier. Mother said she did not know why she tested positive for PCP. She said she smokes cigarettes with her friends. She surmised the cigarette may have contained PCP unbeknownst to her. Mother also apparently said she tested positive because “a friend blew smoke in her face.” As for the positive amphetamines result, mother said she had a prescription for Adderall but she could not provide it. The social worker told mother that DCFS would explore allowing the children to stay in her home with court involvement “due to her having family support.” The social worker explained she would have to ensure maternal grandmother “was onboard with continuing to be a support system for mother and family.” Mother said her family knew of her past drug use. Maternal grandmother reported her willingness to continue to offer support to mother and the children. Mother reported that she would do anything required to ensure the children remained in her care. The social worker informed mother she must complete a rehabilitation program and weekly drug testing. Mother understood and agreed. 8 Mother’s amphetamines and methamphetamine concentration levels were >20000 ng/mL, and her PCP level was 130 ng/mL. 6  On May 14, 2025, DCFS reported it believed mother’s conduct constituted general neglect, based on, among other things: mother’s positive test “align[ing]” with the caller’s allegations; DCFS’s determination that the positive test showed “mother’s ongoing substance abuse has impacted on her ability to care for her children”; “mother’s erratic behavior, inconsistencies, and lack of honesty during the investigation [being] consistent with current substance abuse”; mother’s refusal to “admit her PCP use” and attempt “to minimize the meth use (by saying it happened a while ago)”; and the children’s lack of medical or dental care for the past three or four years. As a result, DCFS filed a non-detained petition on the children’s behalf under section 300, subdivision (b)(1). The single count against mother alleged mother’s history of substance abuse and current abuse of PCP, methamphetamine, and amphetamine rendered her “incapable of providing regular care of the children”; on May 1, 2025, mother had a positive toxicology screen for those drugs, and was under their influence while the children were under her “care and supervision”; and “[s]uch substance abuse . . . endangers the children’s physical health and safety and places the children at risk of serious physical harm, damage and danger.” At the initial hearing on May 29, 2025, on DCFS’s recommendation, the juvenile court released the children to the parents’ custody and designated their primary residence with mother. The court ordered DCFS to provide referrals to mother for drug and alcohol testing and an outpatient treatment program, and to make unannounced visits at mother’s home. 7  c. Continued investigation and adjudication/disposition In addition to the burglary charge, mother’s criminal history included arrests in 2023 and 2024 for possession of paraphernalia and possession of a controlled substance. R.M. also had a criminal history, including arrests in 2024 for possession of unlawful paraphernalia and a controlled substance. The dependency investigator (DI) met with the family on July 3, 2025 at their home. The DI assessed mother’s home as adequate to meet the children’s needs. The children felt safe with their parents and denied being worried or afraid. They denied that mother or anyone else in the home acted strange or made them feel fearful. E.A. said he knew what drugs and alcohol were and denied that mother, father, or anyone else in the home used drugs or alcohol. Z.M. denied seeing anyone smoke in the home. During an interview, mother admitted to using methamphetamine “ ‘on/off’ since 2015.” Her son (with R.M.) died of SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome) that year. Mother stated she “[wa]s very overwhelmed” with caring for her mother and adult brother. Her father recently passed away due to cancer. Mother said she last used about a month earlier and her drug test scheduled for that day would be “ ‘clean.’ ” Mother denied using drugs in or around the home, said she used alone, and denied that her children were present when she uses or is under the influence. She said she had completed a phone interview for an outpatient treatment program at Shields Families on June 27, and her in-person interview was upcoming on July 11. Mother also denied that she and father R.M. used together and denied knowing whether he used any substances or abused alcohol. Mother said R.M. visited Z.M. several times a week at mother’s home but did not live there. 8  Later that day, mother sent the following text message to the DI: “ ‘I want to say I am going thru a lot that came on me at once within and [sic] month and I am dealing with it without putting my kids in any harm but I am trying and going to do what I have to do to keep my children with me I did it when my son passed and I’ll do it now so if u can bear with me please I am quitting Meth I won’t lie to you my test today will be dirty but I promise you the next one won’t be I do apologize for not saying it to you when you were there but I’m scared really scared so please can u understand and not take my kids from me please.’ ” The DI also met separately with the children’s fathers. C.A. told the DI that he was “surprised” and “shocked” when he read DCFS’s report. He said mother is “ ‘a really good mom.’ ” R.M. also said mother was “ ‘a good mom,’ ” and that he “ ‘never he[a]rd anything negative about her from [his] daughter.’ ” Neither father had known mother to use drugs or seen her under the influence with the children. C.A. noted mother “ ‘has a lot going on right now,’ ” between her mother’s cancer and also caring for her brother. E.A. was not at home much—he was with father during most of the day and busy with activities including golf practice and tournaments. C.A. was “willing to participate in the DCFS case in any way possible to support mother” and E.A. R.M. admitted he currently used marijuana but never in Z.M.’s presence. He had moved back to the area five months earlier and saw Z.M. daily. R.M. admitted to using methamphetamine until 10–11 months prior and having used PCP and cocaine in the past. 9 DCFS filed an amended petition that added a count (b-2) against R.M. alleging his history of substance use and current drug use rendered him incapable of providing regular care of Z.M. Mother was not named in that count. Mother tested positive on June 17 for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and marijuana; and on June 27 for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and PCP.9 Mother was a no-show for her tests on June 11 and June 24. The court held a combined adjudication/disposition hearing on July 17, 2025. Mother’s counsel argued there was a “lack of a nexus” between mother’s substance use and “child safety issues.” She argued none of the children ever had been neglected, harmed, or at risk of harm “due to mother’s occasional use outside of their presence.” Counsel noted there were “no reports that the children are not well cared for[, or] . . . that they’re not supervised.” She argued mother had “a lot on her shoulders,” as the children’s primary caretaker and the caretaker of her mother, who recently was diagnosed with cancer, and of her adult brother, who has Down Syndrome. She was “doing her best to comply with the voluntary drug testing” given her caretaking responsibilities and had taken steps to quit. Counsel asked the court to dismiss the count against mother. The court sustained the b-1 count as to mother and dismissed the b-2 as to father R.M. The court ordered the children were to remain placed in home of the parents under 9 Mother’s concentration levels were: >20000 ng/mL for methamphetamine on both dates; 12187 ng/mL on June 17 and >20000 ng/mL on June 27 for amphetamine; and 214 ng/mL for PCP. 10 DCFS supervision. Mother’s court-ordered case plan included completion of a full drug/alcohol program with aftercare, weekly random and on-demand drug/alcohol testing, family preservation services, and individual counseling to address “child protection [and] safety, coping skills, mental health, substance abuse prevention and the effects of exposure to substance abuse on children.” 3. The children’s detention and section 387 petition a. Events leading to detention The day after the hearing, on July 18, the social worker went over mother’s case plan with her. Mother said she was on a waiting list at Shields for an outpatient treatment program. The social worker showed mother how to determine what day she had to drug test and explained she must test weekly. Z.M. was in the living room playing a video game. The social worker reported no safety concerns from the visit. In its October 7 detention report, DCFS reported mother tested positive on July 3 for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and PCP; on July 11 for methamphetamine, amphetamine, PCP, and marijuana; and on July 15 for those same drugs, except marijuana, but at lower levels.10 Mother was a no-show for testing on July 8. Mother was scheduled to test on July 23, but she called the social worker to say she had a family emergency and agreed to test the next day. 10 Mother’s methamphetamine levels on July 3 and 11 were >20000 ng/mL, her amphetamine level was 17027 ng/mL on July 3 and >20000 ng/mL on July 11, and her PCP level was 214 ng/mL and 301 ng/mL on July 3 and 11, respectively. 11  On July 30, the social worker made an unannounced visit at mother’s home. Mother was at the drug testing site. The social worker waited for her to return. Z.M. was inside mopping the floors; something she liked to do. Z.M. said she liked to stay inside and play video games and draw. Once mother arrived, the social worker discussed her positive drug test results. Mother said she didn’t understand “how she keeps coming up positive, she had not used anything.” Mother also stated she continued to take her prescribed medication for anxiety. Mother still was on the waiting list at Shields. The social worker told mother not to wait on Shields and gave her a list of several other outpatient treatment programs near her home to contact. Mother’s July 30 test was positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, PCP, and marijuana. On August 6, she tested positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and PCP.11 The social worker visited mother’s home on August 8. Mother was asleep. The social worker and maternal grandmother asked maternal uncle to wake her up. While waiting for mother, the social worker spoke to Z.M. She was dressed appropriately for the hot weather, but her hair was “ungroomed”—Z.M. did not want to get her hair combed. When asked about her positive test result from August 6, mother claimed she did “not know what is going on, she had not used anything.” Mother said, “ ‘Maybe it is just in my blood.’ ” Mother said she had an intake appointment with Shields on August 14. The social worker called Shields and learned mother had asked 11 Mother’s methamphetamine and amphetamine levels were >20000 ng/mL on both dates. Her PCP level was 424 ng/mL on July 30 and 96 ng/mL on August 6. 12 for and been put on a waitlist for a parenting class. The worker explained the court order required a full drug/alcohol program, “not parenting.” Mother was a no show for testing on August 13. She tested positive on August 19 for the same high level of methamphetamine, a higher level of PCP, a lower level of amphetamine, and for marijuana. During morning visits to C.A.’s home on August 22 and 29, E.A. said he was adjusting well to high school, was playing golf, and playing violin in the school orchestra. C.A. and E.A. were at the same school location. C.A. had no concerns with E.A.’s supervision in mother’s care. He said “mom is a good mother.” Mother had asked him to be part of her support team. He wanted to be part of the process to help mother “to do what is needed.” The social worker made unannounced visits to mother’s home on August 22 and September 10. On August 22, mother was combing Z.M.’s hair, getting her ready for school. Z.M. was dressed appropriately. She had not had breakfast yet but said she eats breakfast at school. The worker had no immediate concerns. Mother was a no-show for testing on August 22, 26, 29, and September 5. On September 10, mother was not home—she had gone to the store for maternal grandmother. Maternal grandmother invited the social worker inside. The social worker had been unable to reach mother about her missed tests. She asked maternal grandmother to remind mother about the child and family team (CFT) meeting scheduled for later that morning at the home. Maternal grandmother called mother, and the social worker spoke to her about it. The social worker also spoke 13 briefly to the children. Z.M. was wearing “dirty jeans and a tee shirt” and went to change her clothes for school. E.A. was ready for school, waiting for his dad to pick him up. Mother and R.M. participated in the CFT meeting. Maternal grandmother and C.A. (virtually) also attended, along with DCFS social workers and other staff. Mother and R.M. “were made aware of services in which they needed to engage to keep the children in the home.” The day after the meeting, September 11, mother again was a no-show for her on-demand drug test. She also failed to provide documentation showing she had enrolled in a substance abuse treatment program. Mother’s September 19 test was positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and PCP. She also tested positive on September 23 for methamphetamine, amphetamine, PCP, and marijuana.12 On September 19, the social worker informed mother by email that DCFS would be filing a warrant to remove the children from her care. Mother called the social worker. Mother said “she was in compliance with everything.” Mother said she had started a treatment program, but didn’t know its name. She said she would look for the paperwork and send it. The social worker also asked mother about family preservation services. Mother claimed she worked with family preservation services, but it was the CFT meeting she had attended. Mother said she would test that day. Later, mother emailed the social 12 For both dates, mother’s methamphetamine levels were >20000 ng/mL. On September 19 her amphetamine and PCP levels were 10086 ng/mL and 37 ng/mL, respectively, and >20000 ng/mL and 273 ng/mL on September 23. 14 worker a receipt showing she tested on September 19 at 5:00 p.m. She also said the treatment center had given her spot to someone else but would send her to another program. On September 22, the social worker informed C.A. that E.A. would be removed from mother. C.A. was worried the news would cause a setback for E.A., who was doing well in school. C.A. was worried E.A. would not want to go to school, or engage in his activities if he were removed from mother. On September 26, mother went to behavioral health services for an intake and was referred to Tarzana Treatment Center. Tarzana was unable to send confirmation of mother’s enrollment to the social worker until mother had completed 30 days of treatment. DCFS applied for the removal order on October 2. It was granted on October 3, and DCFS detained the children from mother that evening. In the detention report, DCFS reported mother had “ongoing and unresolved substance abuse issues.” Mother was “not in compliance” with her case plan despite having been provided with “on-going referrals, transportation and support.” Mother’s failure to respond to the family preservation services counselor had resulted in termination of those services on September 30 “due to three unexcused visits in a row.” DCFS opined the children’s physical health could not be protected without removing them from mother’s physical custody. Mother continued to test positive for high levels of methamphetamine, amphetamine, PCP, and marijuana and had not engaged in the services—outpatient substance abuse treatment, family preservation, and individual counseling—that would “provide 15 mother with the skill[s] necessary for the children to remain safe in her care.” DCFS filed a section 387 supplemental petition. The s-1 count alleged “[t]he previous disposition has not been effective in the rehabilitation or protection of the children” in that mother “has failed to comply with orders of the Juvenile Court”; mother failed to submit to drug testing, and had positive toxicology tests for a combination of amphetamine, methamphetamine, marijuana, and PCP, on specified dates in July through September 2025; mother failed to enroll in a drug/alcohol program with aftercare and individual counseling; mother was terminated from family preservation services on September 30, 2025; and “mother’s continued substance abuse and . . . failure to comply with Juvenile Court Orders endangers the children’s physical health and safety and places the children at risk of serious physical harm and damage.” The petition recommended placement in the home of the noncustodial parent and a foster caretaker. At the October 8 detention hearing, minors’ counsel advised the court that both children wanted to return to mother’s care, but he could not join in their request at that time. Mother’s counsel argued that, despite mother’s positive drug tests, there was no evidence of “any nexus to an actual child safety issue here,” noting the children were reported to be “very well taken care of,” “doing great in school,” and “both developmentally on target.” Counsel also noted mother’s enrollment at Tarzana. The court admitted mother’s exhibit of the Tarzana outpatient group schedule with mother’s name listed as the client. Counsel argued reasonable means existed to prevent detention such as conditioning the children’s release on mother’s continued 16 attendance in that program, or on mother being in the home with maternal grandmother and maternal uncle. The court found the children’s continued placement in the home of mother (and of R.M. for Z.M.) “is contrary to the children’s welfare.” The court detained both children from mother and detained Z.M. from R.M. The court released E.A. to his father C.A. Mother wanted Z.M. to be placed with maternal grandmother—mother’s adult son said he was willing to help and had taken Z.M. to school and fed her “when needed” in the past—or, alternatively, with maternal cousin. A DI concluded maternal grandmother was “unable to tend to [Z.M.’s] needs as she requires the mother’s assistance to tend to her own needs.” On October 17, 2025, the court ordered Z.M. released to a maternal cousin. In November 2025, DCFS filed an amended section 387 petition to add a count (s-2) as to father R.M. based on his criminal history, drug use, and failure to submit to court-ordered drug testing. b. Further interviews The DI re-interviewed the children, parents, and family members. Neither Z.M. or E.A. had “a clear understanding of what drugs and alcohol are.” After the DI explained, each child denied having seen mother, their respective father, or anyone in the home using drugs or alcohol. Z.M. said that, in August 2025, she saw mother “put alcohol on a napkin and breath it in.” Z.M. was not scared of mother afterward. E.A. felt safe in mother’s home and his father’s home. C.A. reported that E.A. had had some “regression in his desire to do activities” since DCFS’s involvement. Z.M. said she missed her mother. Maternal cousin said Z.M. had “some sadness of being removed from mother’s 17 care.” Z.M. told her that “ ‘her mother loves them and takes good care of them.’ ” Maternal cousin, who used to visit mother’s home on the weekends to see maternal grandmother, denied knowledge of mother using drugs or alcohol or appearing to be under the influence. She had never seen any changes in mother’s mood or behavior. She stated mother was always very involved with the children. Maternal cousin said she had seen father R.M. at mother’s house and had seen him intoxicated. Both C.A. and R.M. maintained they had no knowledge of mother using drugs and had never seen mother appear to be under the influence in the home. R.M. was arrested for a felony on October 26, 2025. He was charged with assault with a deadly weapon. He admitted he had a substance abuse problem and needed treatment. Maternal grandmother told the DI mother drank alcohol “regularly”—the last time was a month earlier—but did not drink around her or the children. She now said she had “seen mother appear as if she might be under the influence of some substances.” She noticed mother sometimes “look[ed] ‘a little off,’ ” and would get mad if maternal grandmother questioned her. Maternal grandmother said that, “in the event that she suspected mother was under the influence,” she would care for the children. The DI asked how she was able to care for the children, as she’s bedridden. Maternal grandmother said that, if they were hungry or she would need anything, “she can call mother, and mother would provide.” On October 29, the DI interviewed mother. She said she had enrolled in Tarzana at the end of August or early September after having been on the waitlist at Shields. She currently was 18 enrolled in parenting classes, life skills, and an outpatient drug program. She attended three days a week. She also had participated in three sessions of virtual therapy with on-call therapists. Mother told the DI she had been using methamphetamine since she was 21 years old and last used last week. She had smoked marijuana off and on since she was 15 years old and last used the day before. She last had alcohol three weeks ago. Mother maintained she never used PCP. She thought “maybe it was accidentally in a cigarette that she may have smoked.” Mother also said she never used substances around the children—she would use at a friend’s house, in her garage, or when the children were at school, sleeping, or not home. She said her drug use had “never affected her ability to care for her children.” She used substances “to help with her emotions.” She explained that within the last year maternal grandmother became sick, maternal grandfather died, and now she was dealing with DCFS involvement. And years earlier, her son had died. c. Mother’s treatment program Mother’s case manager at Tarzana said mother had been late to or missed several group classes in her treatment program. She started the program on September 29. On October 20, mother tested positive for substances, including methamphetamine and PCP. On November 3, mother asked to leave early to avoid a drug test. The case manager reported that mother did not “appear engaged in the classes.” She had been in the program for 30 days “with no progress.” Her last random drug test was negative. On November 6, however, mother was late for group and tested positive. The case manager explained to mother that the next step was to place her on a 19 contract to enter a 90-day residential program. Mother wanted to be present for her daughter’s birthday and was concerned about maternal grandmother’s care. Mother was open to entering residential treatment on December 1. On December 2, the substance abuse counselor at Tarzana informed the DI that a week earlier a bed had become available in its inpatient program, but mother had declined because she wanted to have a birthday visit with Z.M. and to be able to have her phone with her. The counselor again spoke to mother on December 1, and mother agreed to enter an inpatient program. A bed was expected to become available around December 15. Mother still had not made any progress. DCFS reported, “Mother does not believe she has a substance abuse problem and lacks insight on how substance use can impair her judgment.” It recommended family reunification services. d. Hearing on section 387 petition On December 5, 2025, the court held a combined adjudication/disposition hearing on the amended section 387 petition. Minors’ counsel submitted on the petition. Mother’s counsel asked the court to dismiss the s-1 count against mother, again arguing that testing positive for drugs “without an articulable nexus to a child safety issue does not give the court enough to sustain the allegation.” Counsel argued “at no point in the case” had there ever been “an indication” that the children were being neglected or abused. Nothing indicated the children weren’t going to school, were developmentally off target, that they weren’t being fed or bathed, or that they weren’t supervised sufficiently at all times. The court sustained both counts of the 20 petition and found “the previous disposition has been ineffective in ensuring the protection of the children.” As for disposition, minors’ counsel asked for visits between the children and mother to be unmonitored upon proof of her enrollment in a substance abuse treatment program and four consecutive negative tests. Mother’s counsel asked for the children to be returned to mother’s care. Counsel argued mother was “willing to have the children’s return conditioned on any number of consistent negative tests the court would like to see and her continued demonstration of sobriety through consistent participation in programs as well as consistent negative tests. She’s willing to comply with the case plan and with all court orders.” Counsel again argued she did not believe there was a safety risk as to the children being returned. DCFS’s counsel argued mother had full custody of her children and was given orders, yet “she missed several tests and then was still using.” The court noted mother’s positive tests, her failure to submit to on-demand testing after participating in a CFT meeting, and her subsequent positive test on November 6. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that there was a substantial danger to the children’s physical or emotional well- being or physical health, safety, or protection. Further, the court found there were no reasonable means to protect them absent removal from mother and, for Z.M., also from her father. Mother appealed from the court’s December 5, 2025 findings and orders. DISCUSSION 1. Applicable law and standard of review “A section 387 supplemental petition is used to change the placement of a dependent child from the physical custody of a parent to a more restrictive level of court-ordered care.” (In re 21 T.W. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1161 (T.W.); see also § 387; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.560(c).) The hearing on a section 387 petition is bifurcated. (In re Javier G. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 453, 460; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.565(e).) The court first conducts an adjudicatory hearing to “determine[ ] whether the factual allegations of the supplemental petition are true and whether the previous disposition has been ineffective in protecting the child.” (T.W., at p. 1161; Javier G., at pp. 460– 461.) “If the court finds the allegations are true, it conducts a dispositional hearing to determine whether removing custody is appropriate.” (T.W., at p. 1161.) The rules that govern jurisdictional hearings and the initial disposition hearing apply to the corresponding hearings on a section 387 petition. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 5.565 (e)(1), (2), 5.682–5.684, 5.690–5.705.) “A section 387 petition need not allege any new jurisdictional facts, or urge different or additional grounds for dependency, because a basis for juvenile court jurisdiction already exists. [Citations.] The only fact necessary to modify a previous placement is that the previous disposition has not been effective in protecting the child.” (T.W., supra, 214 Cal.App.4th at p. 1161.) Section 361 governs the standard for removal on a section 387 petition just as it does on an original petition. (T.W., at p. 1163.) The court must find by clear and convincing evidence that “[t]here 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 . . . physical custody.” (§ 361, subd. (c)(1); In re D.D. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 985, 996 (D.D.); T.W., 22 at p. 1163.) “A removal order is proper if it is based on proof of: (1) parental inability to provide proper care for the minor; and (2) potential detriment to the minor if he or she remains with the parent.” (T.W., at p. 1163.) “ ‘We review an order sustaining a section 387 petition for substantial evidence.’ [Citations.] Evidence is substantial if it is ‘ “ ‘ “reasonable, credible, and of solid value.” ’ ” ’ [Citation.] ‘We do not pass on the credibility of witnesses, attempt to resolve conflicts in the evidence or weigh the evidence. Instead, we draw all reasonable inferences in support of the findings, view the record in favor of the juvenile court’s order and affirm the order even if other evidence supports a contrary finding.’ [Citation.] Mother, as the appellant, bears the burden of showing there is no evidence of a sufficiently substantial nature to support the findings or order. [Citation.]” (D.D., supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at pp. 989–990.) “When 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.” (Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1011 (O.B).) “ ‘ “ ‘ “The ultimate test is whether it is reasonable for a trier of fact to make the ruling in question in light of the whole record.” ’ ” ’ ” (In re J.A. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 1036, 1046.) 2. We will not dismiss mother’s appeal DCFS argues mother’s appeal should be dismissed. At the disposition phase of the July 17 hearing, mother’s counsel argued an outpatient treatment program would be appropriate because counsel could “walk it on for further orders” if mother continued to test positive or was terminated from her program. 23  DCFS contends mother thus “waived” her challenge to the section 387 petition’s b-1 count. DCFS characterizes the section 387 petition as “simply the vehicle DCFS used to ask the juvenile court for the additional orders m