Filed 8/28/17 In re B.P. CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re B.P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.	H044362 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 16-JD024059)
SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN’S SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. T.P., Defendant and Appellant.

T.P. (mother) appeals the juvenile court’s jurisdiction and disposition orders declaring her minor child, B.P. (son), a dependent of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect) and (c) (serious emotional damage).[1]

On appeal, mother argues there was insufficient evidence to support the jurisdictional findings under either subdivision.

We disagree and will affirm the orders.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

A. May 6, 2016 petition

On May 6, 2016, the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (Department) filed a juvenile dependency petition in the Sacramento County Superior Court^[2] alleging that (then) 10-year-old son was at substantial risk of serious physical harm (§ 300, subd. (b)) due to mother’s willful or negligent failure to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment. As alleged in the petition, mother “has a substance abuse problem with pharmaceutical narcotics dating back to at least 2004” and, on May 4, 2016, was driving a car “for Uber, with passengers, while under the influence of controlled substances.” Meanwhile, son was left alone, unsupervised, in the motel room he shared with mother, and mother had left him similarly unattended in the past.

B. May 9, 2016 detention report and initial detention hearing

The report noted that son was placed into protective custody on May 4, 2016, at 2:32 a.m. after mother was arrested for driving under the influence and being in possession of a firearm. In her interview, mother admitted leaving son alone in the motel while she worked, but she was not concerned about his safety because he had “ ‘a mind of an adult.’ ”

When asked about the incident leading up to her arrest, mother acknowledged she had taken prescription pain medication, but denied that she abused that medication. She took more than the prescribed amount the day she was arrested because she had developed a tolerance to her medications. She further believed that she was “set up” by Uber in a “sting operation.”

Following the initial hearing on the petition, the juvenile court ordered son detained and calendared the jurisdiction/disposition hearing for June 6, 2016.

C. June 6, 2016 jurisdiction/disposition report

The social worker reported she interviewed mother on May 11, 2016 and mother denied abusing prescription medicines. Mother admitted writing a prescription for someone else in 2004 when she worked as a registered dental assistant.

Mother blamed her passengers for her erratic driving on the night she was arrested. She said they were “talking and shouting, making it difficult for her to concentrate.” Because it was dark, she could not see very well, and she was not familiar with the streets in the area. The information set forth in the police officer’s report was “ ‘fabricated,’ ” especially as to her being under the influence. She believes she passed all the field sobriety tests. Mother said that sometimes she is in more pain than usual, so she takes more of her prescription medication.

Mother admitted leaving son alone in their motel room, but was not worried about him because he “ ‘thinks like an adult.’ ” Son knew what to do if anyone came to the door when she was not there and had a cell phone if there were an emergency.

Son was also interviewed for the report. He said that mother sometimes left him alone after school for a “ ‘couple hours’ ” while she was driving for Uber. This did not happen every day, but occurred “most days after school.” He denied being worried about being alone, saying he could cook food, such as “ ‘[c]hicken and frozen food’ ” for himself. While alone, he would play on mother’s tablet and watch videos on YouTube.

Son was aware that mother used medication for her pain, but denied that she took too many pills. He said that she is often in pain, but not “ ‘every single day.’ ”

In the California Highway Patrol (CHP) investigative report attached to the jurisdiction/disposition report, an off-duty CHP officer and his two companions were passengers in the Uber vehicle driven by mother. The officer observed that mother had trouble answering simple questions, and at one point, she was driving around 95 miles per hour on the freeway. Off the freeway, mother ran several stop signs as well as a red light. She crossed over the lane markers on occasion. The off-duty officer in the car saw a CHP patrol vehicle, and convinced mother to honk her horn to attract their attention.

After she was pulled over, mother “was unsteady on her feet [and] appeared to be disoriented.” Her “eyes were red and watery and appeared to be extremely constricted.” Mother told the officers she took several prescription medications and, due to the tolerance she has built up, “had to take more than her prescribed amount.” She failed to complete the field sobriety tests as directed.

Following mother’s arrest for driving under the influence, her vehicle was towed and searched. Officers recovered an unloaded firearm (registered to mother) in the trunk, a loaded magazine for a .40-caliber handgun in the center console as well as a bag containing prescription medications.^[3]

Upon her arrest, mother told officers that son was alone at the motel room. When they arrived to perform a welfare check, they found son in “good health,” but the room was “in disarray with clothes and food strewn” throughout. Son told the officers that mother usually left him alone while she worked, but usually got home around 9:00 p.m. Son was taken into custody that evening by a social worker.

Mother submitted to a drug test on May 4, 2016, and tested positive for benzodiazepines, barbiturates, and oxycodone. Mother declined to sign a release so that the Department could obtain a list of her current prescribed medications and dosages. She also declined to provide any family background, indicating she did not believe that information was relevant.

The report noted that son was enrolled in the fifth grade at an elementary school in Sacramento, but was “showing below basic standards in language[,] arts, mathematics, history/social studies, and science.” His grades demonstrated a need for improvement “in nearly all areas of learning skills such as following directions, demonstrating respect with peers, and returning completed homework on time.” At his prior elementary school in San Jose, he was on a behavioral support plan, implemented in September 2015, had an individualized education plan (IEP) for his behavior, and was placed into special education.

Son was suspended from school for several days in late May 2016 for “kicking furniture[,] . . . not listening to the teacher[,] [and] [t]he following day [son] walked over to a chair in the classroom and . . . ‘hump[ed] it’ in front of a group of girls.” At his prior elementary school in San Jose, it was reported that son had “40 behavioral referrals . . . , has been suspended three times for issues concerning sexual assault, deviance, vulgarity, and physical violence, and dropped out of the school in the fourth grade for a period of over two weeks.”

Following his placement in protective custody, son was given a mental health screening. The screening showed that son needed mental health services, and a therapist was assigned to him.

At the June 6, 2016 jurisdiction/disposition hearing, mother requested the matter be set for trial. The court granted her request and set the contested hearing for July 11, 2016.

D. June 27, 2016 amended petition

The petition was amended on June 27, 2016, to include an allegation that son was suffering serious emotional damage (§ 300, subd. (c)) due to mother’s inability to provide appropriate care, evidenced by son’s suspension from school for inappropriate and violent behavior. Per the allegations in the amended petition, son’s behavioral issues were caused by mother’s habit of leaving him unsupervised and she further lacked the skills or ability to meet his emotional needs.

E. July 11, 2016 addendum report

The July 11 report contained information from the 2004 police report the Department obtained relating to mother’s conviction for forging a prescription as well as details relating to an unannounced visit with mother by social workers on June 3, 2016.

Per the 2004 police report, mother stole an unknown number of prescription forms from the dental office where she was employed as a temporary dental assistant. The investigating officer called mother and advised her that he was investigating her for prescription forgery. She returned his call and admitted to forging one prescription in her father’s name. She told the officer she had disposed of the remaining blank prescription forms. Mother said she has chronic headaches, but did not have medical insurance, so she took the forms to obtain pain medication.

As to the June 3, 2016 visit, the social workers showed up unannounced at the motel where mother was staying. Mother appeared annoyed by the surprise visit and did not initially allow the social workers to enter her room. After approximately three minutes, mother let the social workers inside. Mother expressed concern about son’s safety as he had texted her saying he “is being slapped, knocked to the ground, and kids are putting their hands on him daily.” The social workers assured her that son’s safety was their priority and had no knowledge of these incidents. The social workers noted that mother’s “speech appeared slurred during the home visit” and she could not remain on topic. The social workers were concerned that she was under the influence.

The report further noted that mother had not visited with son as scheduled, because the times were “not convenient for her.” Mother also told the social workers she would not participate in any services without a court order “because the allegations [in the petition] are false.”

F. Contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing

The Department submitted its case on the amended petition, the May 9 detention report, the June 6 jurisdiction/disposition report, and the two addendum reports (dated June 27 and July 11, 2016 respectively).

Mother testified on her own behalf. She and son moved to Sacramento from Santa Clara County in January 2016. She was currently living in Santa Clara County again and was in the process of looking for a more permanent place to stay. At the time of the hearing, she was staying in various places, including a relative’s house, a friend’s house and sometimes her car.

Mother first obtained her driver’s license at the age of 16, but it was temporarily suspended in 1999 when she was 21 after she got a “wet reckless.” She also had a reckless driving incident on her record from 1995.

Mother testified she was presently on active status with Uber, but did not currently have a vehicle to drive for them. The one she leased through Uber was towed when she was arrested. Because she could not afford to pick it up from the impound lot, Uber took possession of it. Uber investigated the May 4, 2016 incident but ultimately allowed her to resume driving for the company. The criminal charges from her May arrest were still pending, but she anticipated setting the matter for trial within the next few days.

When asked about leaving son alone, mother testified that the longest time she had ever done so was for four hours. She said it was rare that she left him alone because she “was there all the time.” His school informed her that if she was unable to pick him up on time, he was “old enough” to “walk home with other students . . . [who] live there [at the same Extended Stay motel].”

Mother testified that the medications listed in the jurisdiction/disposition report did not represent all the medications she took. She estimated she probably took seven or eight prescriptions for her various conditions, including: thyroid disease; high blood pressure; fibromyalgia; carpal tunnel in both hands; nerve damage down her spine; and diabetes. Only one of her current medications—Opana—was an opioid and she had been taking that medication for about three years. Mother said that, because she had been taking opioids for so many years, she would build a tolerance to a particular opioid and would have to change to a different one. She had previously taken morphine, methadone, and Demerol before being prescribed Opana.

Because she was a long-term user of opiates, Kaiser Medical Group required that she sign a contract with them regarding her use of opiates. Pursuant to that agreement, mother had to take drug tests three times a year and see her doctor at specified intervals.

When asked if her opioid dosage had increased in the past year, mother testified that she was in a program at Kaiser designed to help people off opioids. They had explained to her that people were overdosing on opioids and it was becoming an epidemic. In that program, mother was working with a pharmacist at Kaiser to taper her down and off opioids.

When asked about son’s problems at his school in Santa Clara County, she felt that a lot of the incidents were exaggerated and believed they were being used against both him and her. Mother testified the teacher had a problem with son and wanted him out of her class. Once son was placed in a different class, son did not have issues “in the same manner” as he had with the prior teacher.

When asked if son had been suspended in the next class he was moved to, mother at first said she did not think he was suspended. She then admitted he was involved in an “incident that was very childish and petty.” Son was “playing around about passing gas” with some other boys and son “put his face near the bottom of one of the kids.” The assistant vice-principal “considered that to be sexual battery or assault or something with sexual in it.” Son was suspended and child protective services was called, though they ultimately dismissed the charge after investigating it.

At son’s school in Sacramento, there had only been “a few little minor issues.” Mother was aware that son was suspended in late May 2016, and son told her it was for “kicking furniture and humping furniture in front of a group of girls.”

Discussing the arrest, mother said she had only been working for Uber for two weeks before the incident. Before that, she only left son alone when she had problems getting home on the bus since she was not familiar with the area. She instructed son that if anyone came to the door when she was not there, he should not make a sound, but try to quietly see who was at the door.

Son had a cell phone to call her parents, his three siblings or 911, and the people who ran the motel knew him so he could go to the lobby for help if he needed it.

On May 4, 2016, mother had worked from morning until 10:30 at night, though she dropped son off in the motel room after school that day. She made sure he had something to eat, then left. She provided rides for perhaps eight Uber customers that day, and none of the passengers complained about her driving.

Mother testified that she was entrapped by police, because earlier that day, she hit another car while trying to parallel park. She guessed someone saw the incident and called the police to report a hit-and-run.

Mother said that, the night she was arrested, the passengers were giving her directions in a “forceful” manner and confusing her. It was dark and she was not familiar with the area. She did not recall driving through any stop signs, and denied driving 90 miles per hour. The highest speed she reached on the freeway was probably 75 to 80 miles per hour. She believes she passed all the sobriety tests officers administered at the scene.

Mother denied telling officers she had taken more than the prescribed dosage of her medications. Instead, she told them she might have taken more than she normally does because of her high tolerance. Even then, the amount would have fallen within the prescribed dosage and she did not believe she had taken too much medication that day. She conceded that she told officers she had taken her medication at 1:00 p.m. that day, but did not independently recall at the hearing when she took her medication. Mother said she does not count out the pills, but takes them as needed for her pain. Because she had a migraine that day, she took one more Butalbital than usual.

Mother did not remember specifying to officers all the various medications that she took. Some of them she did not take and some she took in lower doses than the CHP report noted. She said the officer concentrated his questions on the Butalbital, and put in the report that she had taken “a ridiculous amount” of pills. When asked how many medications she was currently prescribed, mother estimated maybe 10 or 12, including medications for her dry scalp and for allergies.

While mother had medication in her system, mother testified it would not have been enough to affect her ability to drive. If anything, taking too much medication would make her tired. She did have problems with her night vision, but that was not due to the medications. One of her medications, Gabapentin, could cause her speech to be somewhat slurred, but it would not “cause you to drive erratically and run stop signs.”

Mother testified she had been taking pain medication since the age of 14 due to various health issues. If she was not feeling well, it did not matter if she had taken her medication or not, she had to stay in bed. This negatively affected her relationship with son because she could not play with him on those days.

However, mother denied that her use of medication hindered her involvement in son’s school activities or her ability to address his behavioral issues. In her opinion, the school in Santa Clara County subjected her to emotional distress, because “a lot of things they were doing were wrong.” The behavioral reports they were making were improper and were made to get son out of their school. Every time she would fight the school district, son would get disciplinary referrals and get suspended.

Mother admitted that son had probably done some of the things listed in the Department’s reports, but “at the same time to give him a disciplinary referral because he pokes somebody in the side trying to tickle them, what is that?” She further conceded that the time he reportedly threw a pencil at a girl was “obviously wrong,” but said “he doesn’t do stuff like that on a regular basis.”

When asked about the report that son inappropriately touched another child in 2012, mother said this probably one of the incidents where the teacher wanted to get him out of her class. She said that son did “little annoying things that she made referrals about continuously[,] [a]nd then finally it came to . . . , now he’s sexually touched someone.” The “way it was written was that he asked to touch under some girl’s dress or touch her thigh.” In May 2013, son received a referral for putting his face up to another child’s buttocks, but mother said he and the other boys had been playing around about passing gas.

Mother was concerned about the most recent suspension where son was “humping” furniture, because he had never done anything like that before. While he “might be having some type of sexual things going on in his body,” mother thought he had perhaps learned the behavior from other children at the group home.

Mother acknowledged she had issues controlling her anger and said it was genetic. When she gets mad, she would sometimes have to “hit at something,” but she would not go out and do something illegal. Son, when he got mad, wanted to hit something, but this was not a major issue to her, as everyone has their own method of managing their anger. She admitted using corporal punishment on son, including spanking and “hit[ting] at” him, but she did not physically abuse him.

Since son was removed from her physical custody, mother had not engaged in services nor had she been visiting him. She testified that visitations had been scheduled at inconvenient times. She submitted to the one drug test for the Department upon her release from jail, but none since.

Mother had not signed a release to allow the Department to obtain her medical records because she did not see why the Department needed that information. She said she could provide the records to the Department herself. Mother did not understand why the Department was trying to “cause issues” with her when she has not “done anything wrong.”

When asked about counseling, mother said she did not “agree with” it, because counselors did not “really pay attention to what you’re saying.” She had been in counseling before and “they just don’t really seem like they’re concerned about truly helping me.” She believes that when a person has problems, only that person can fix them, not a counselor.

As for her 2004 conviction for forging a prescription, mother admitted she wrote her father’s name on a stolen prescription slip to get Norco for herself. She had to take a substance abuse class because of that conviction and “that was the end of it.”

Mother testified that son was not in school from October through December 2015 because she was in the process of moving them to Sacramento. She had applied to rent an apartment, but did not want to place him in school until that application was approved. She did not leave him in school in Santa Clara County until she finalized her move to Sacramento because she figured “it wouldn’t be that big of a deal for him to miss school” during those months, due to the holidays. Mother further said she did not believe there was anything wrong with son being left alone in a motel room at 11:00 p.m. The room was locked and son knew not to come out. Nothing in that room could harm him and he knew what to do if he needed help.

G. Jurisdictional/dispositional ruling

Following argument by counsel, the juvenile court issued its ruling, finding first that the evidence presented did not support the allegation that mother had a substance abuse problem which impaired her ability to care for the child. Consequently, the court struck and dismissed that allegation under section 300, subdivision (b)(1).

However, the court sustained the allegation under section 300, subdivision (b)(2) that mother failed to provide adequate care and supervision of son, explaining that the evidence presented showed a “nexus between the mother’s leaving [son] alone in a residence hotel and [son] being at risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness . . . . [¶] . . . [Son] is ten years old. . . . [¶] . . . and although he may be mature and . . . mother would say don’t open the door and don’t do this, at ten years old you just don’t have judgment in order to exercise if something were to happen. Things happen to children. He could trip and fall. He could open the door to a dangerous stranger. He could cut himself while he was preparing food. A fire could start in the apartment. There are many things that happen even to ten year olds [sic] where they are not in control of a situation.”

The court also sustained the allegations under section 300, subdivision (c)(1). The court specifically noted mother’s testimony that son’s anger issues were genetic and found there was a history of “inappropriate expression of anger.” The environment created a substantial risk of son suffering serious emotional damage which has resulted in his demonstrating aggression towards others.

H. Transfer to Santa Clara County for disposition

At mother’s request, the juvenile court put the matter over for a hearing on whether the case should be transferred to Santa Clara County for disposition. On August 15, 2016, the juvenile court in Sacramento County ordered the case transferred to Santa Clara County, which accepted the transfer by order dated September 8, 2016.

I. September 28, 2016 disposition report

The disposition report recommended that son be removed from mother’s custody and that family reunification services be provided.

In the report, mother’s various medical issues were recounted, including removal of tumors beginning at age 14, chronic headaches, fibromyalgia, nerve damage, etc. Since 2004, mother had been taking prescribed medications including: Oxycodone, Flexeril, Butalbitol, Cyclobenzaprine, Gabapentin, Tenormin, and Thyroxin.^[4]

Son was in the sixth grade, but was still academically behind his grade level. He was subject to an IEP for a specific learning disability, but had trouble following class rules. He was described as impulsive and would leave his seat without permission. Son would rarely complete his homework or turn it in. He “had the tendency to get into the personal space of his peers” who reported he “was keeping them from getting their work done.”

Mother and a social worker attended an IEP meeting on September 23, 2016, at which it was recommended that son be placed in a small group learning environment for most of his classes. It was further recommended that son undergo a behavioral assessment by the school psychologist, along with a mental health assessment, as well as individual counseling. Mother agreed to the small group environment and the behavioral assessment, but refused to permit a mental health assessment, as she was “uncomfortable with [son] receiving these services outside of their church and with providers who are unknown to her.”

The disposition report included a summary of issues which had resulted in numerous counseling sessions and suspensions. In fifth grade, son was suspended for: (1) kicking furniture, not listening to the teacher, and humping a chair; and (2) throwing a pencil at a girl who took a piece of paper from him, nearly hitting her in the eye. Earlier that year, he was pushing other students in line and was made to eat his lunch in the office, but upon being released to the schoolyard, went to the same students and pushed one of them again.

Near the beginning of the school year, son “threatened to stab two female students after school[,] [and] [l]ater told two male students he would pull their ‘pants down and rape them.’ ” He threatened to kidnap and torture another female student. The report listed statements from four eighth grade students about son, which included him threatening to rape, murder and stab them. He reportedly said he was going to cut off the yard supervisor’s head and make her “ ‘suck my dick.’ ”

In the report, the social worker expressed concern about son’s “previous behaviors that manifested so early in his academic career.” He has exhibited “assaultive, oppositional, sexualized and threatening behaviors at school,” and the social worker recommended individual counseling to begin to address the underlying causes of his behavior.

In the interview with son, the social worker noted he presented as “soft spoken, polite, [and] respectful.” He said he was “ ‘very, very, sad’ ” and “ ‘traumatized’ ” due to his removal from mother’s custody and believed it was unfair.

The former foster mother in Santa Clara County reported that son displayed symptoms of anxiety, such as hyperventilating and strained breathing, both prior to and after visits and phone calls with mother. She also reported that son was consistently fearful someone would “ ‘break into the house with a knife.’ ”

As for mother’s prescription medication, the report noted that while the court did not sustain the allegation of substance abuse, mother had been arrested for driving under the influence of drugs. Furthermore, mother had developed a tolerance to opioids due to taking them for over 10 years.

J. November 3 and November 30, 2016 addendum reports

The November 3 report addressed son’s current behavior issues in his sixth-grade class, as reported by his teacher. Son’s teacher said that he struggles to complete his work and there were concerns about his returning his homework consistently. Son struggles with peer relationships, as he does not “always recognize what is appropriate language and personal space.” As examples, his teacher reported that son would “ ‘start[] an argument by saying someone thinks someone else is stupid, when nothing like that was ever said. He has been bothering some students by crushing a water bottle in their face and when they ask him to stop he continues, until they walk away. Walking by a student and swinging his hand near their face as if to slap them. . . . Flicking someone’s hair even when they ask him to stop.’ ”

Pursuant to his IEP, son was being pulled out of his primary class twice a day for additional instruction in language, arts and math. The resource specialist reported that son had difficulty paying attention and staying focused on any instruction. He also had difficulty processing the information given to him.

In the November 30, 2016 addendum report, the Department recommended that son be returned to mother’s custody under family maintenance services, with son to remain with his grandparents during the week so he would not have to change schools again.

The report noted that mother had become very involved in son’s schooling and attended the various meetings relating to his education. She recognizes son’s need for stability and had worked hard to obtain housing for them to live in together.

K. Disposition hearing

The parties submitted the matter on the petition and the various reports, including addendums. After the hearing, the juvenile court declared son a dependent of the court, but placed him with mother and ordered family maintenance services. Mother was directed to attend a parent orientation class, as well as a teen/pre-teen parenting class. The juvenile court also ordered family counseling or psychotherapy to address son’s history of aggressive behavior, setting appropriate boundaries, and meeting his emotional needs.^[5]

II. Discussion

A. Jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b)

Mother first argues there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations that son was at substantial risk of serious physical harm (§ 300, subd. (b)) due to mother’s willful or negligent failure to provide for him. She contends that “[a] few random incidents of [son] being left in a hotel suite with adequate food, entertainment, and a cell phone” was not sufficient to sustain the jurisdictional findings. We disagree.

1. Legal principles governing jurisdiction

Section 300 et seq. provides “a comprehensive statutory scheme establishing procedures for the juvenile court to follow when and after a child is removed from the home for the child’s welfare.” (In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 52.)

“The objective of the dependency scheme is to protect abused or neglected children and those at substantial risk thereof and to provide permanent, stable homes if those children cannot be returned home within a prescribed period of time. [Citations.] Although a parent’s interest in the care, custody and companionship of a child is a liberty interest that may not be interfered with in the absence of a compelling state interest, the welfare of a child is a compelling state interest that a state has not only a right, but a duty, to protect.” (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 307.)

Section 300, subdivision (b), sets forth several grounds for finding a child a “dependent child” within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. In relevant part, it provides for jurisdiction if the “child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness, as a result of the failure or inability of [the] parent . . . to adequately supervise or protect the child.” (§ 300, subd. (b)(1).)[6]

A jurisdiction finding under section 300, subdivision (b) requires proof of 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 [child], or a “substantial risk” of such harm or illness.’ ” (In re John M. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 410, 418.)

“ ‘Subdivision (b) means what it says. Before courts and agencies can exert jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b), there must be evidence indicating that the child is exposed to a substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness.’ ” (In re John M., supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at p. 418.) “ ‘The third element, . . . effectively requires a showing that at the time of the jurisdictional hearing the child is at substantial risk of serious physical harm in the future (e.g., evidence showing a substantial risk that past physical harm will reoccur).’ (In re Savannah M. [(2005)] 131 Cal.App.4th [1387,] 1396, . . . ; see also In re S.O. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 453, 461 [past conduct probative “ ‘if there is reason to believe that the conduct will continue’ ”].) [¶] The paramount concern of any dependency proceeding is the child’s best interests. (In re Josiah Z. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 664, 673.)” (In re B.T. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 685, 692.)

2. Standard of review

We review the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings under the substantial evidence standard of review. (In re D.P. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 911, 917-918; In re E.B. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 568, 578 [the “substantial evidence rule applies no matter what the standard of proof at trial”].) “ ‘In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jurisdictional findings and disposition, we determine if substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supports them. “In making this determination, we draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders of the dependency court; we review the record in the light most favorable to the court’s determinations; and we note that issues of fact and credibility are the province of the trial court.” [Citation.] “We do not reweigh the evidence or exercise independent judgment, but merely determine if there are sufficient facts to support the findings of the trial court. [Citations.] ‘ “[T]he [appellate] court must review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence . . . such that a reasonable trier of fact could find [that the order is appropriate].” ’ ” ’ ” (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773.)

Under the substantial evidence standard of review, we must uphold the trial court’s findings “ ‘unless, after reviewing the entire record and resolving all conflicts in favor of the respondent and drawing all reasonable inferences in support of the judgment, we determine there is no substantial evidence to support the findings.’ ” (In re J.N. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1022 (J.N.).)

To be sufficient to sustain a juvenile dependency petition the evidence must be reasonable, credible, and of solid value. (In re R.V. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 837, 843.) “Substantial evidence . . . is not synonymous with any evidence. [Citation.] ‘A decision supported by a mere scintilla of evidence need not be affirmed on appeal.’ [Citation.] Although substantial evidence may consist of inferences, those inferences must be products of logic and reason and must be based on the evidence. Inferences that are the result of mere speculation or conjecture cannot support a finding. The ultimate test is whether a reasonable trier of fact would make the challenged ruling considering the whole record.” (In re James R. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 129, 135.)

3. Analysis

Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s findings that jurisdiction of son was warranted under section 300, subdivision (b) due to mother’s failure to properly supervise the child.

When asked about the longest period she left son alone in their motel room, mother said “four hours.” Although she testified it was “very rare” that she left him alone, son told the social workers mother left him alone “most days after school” while she drove for Uber “for a couple hours.”

As the juvenile court noted, a 10-year-old simply does not “have [the] judgment in order to exercise if something were to happen [while alone].” A fire could break out—in the room, or even elsewhere in the motel—and son may not have the ability to act appropriately to protect himself. He could accidentally trip and hit his head against a counter or a piece of furniture and no one would know of his need for medical help for perhaps several hours. While mother believed that son was never in extraordinary danger because, in her words, he “thinks like an adult,” the truth is that even the most sophisticated 10-year-old should not regularly be left without adult supervision for hours at a time.

The fact that mother was unable or unwilling to acknowledge that her actions created a substantial risk of harm to son further supports the juvenile court’s findings. (See J.N., supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1025-1026 [“In evaluating risk . . . , a juvenile court should consider . . . , among other things, evidence of the parent’s current understanding of and attitude toward the past conduct that endangered a child.”].) Mother initially refused to become involved in any services, absent a court order, because in her opinion, the allegations in the petition were false and the police officers had no real cause to arrest her.

In addition to the foregoing, mother’s opioid dependency was both long-standing and unlikely to change soon. The night she was arrested she told police she took more than the prescribed dosage due to her having built up a tolerance.[7] When she was in pain and not driving for Uber, she testified that she remained in bed and was unable to play with son. While she was physically present in the motel room on those occasions, her incapacity calls into question her ability to adequately supervise and protect him.

Based on the foregoing, there is substantial evidence supporting the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (b).

B. Jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (c)

1. Legal principles and standard of review

Section 300, subdivision (c) is implicated where: “The child is suffering serious emotional damage, or is at substantial risk of suffering serious emotional damage, evidenced by severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal, or untoward aggressive behavior toward self or others, as a result of the conduct of the parent or guardian or who has no parent or guardian capable of providing appropriate care.”

Dependency under that subdivision can be established by showing either that a parent’s conduct caused emotional damage (or substantial risk of damage) or that the child is suffering emotional damage in the care of a parent who is unable to provide adequate treatment for the child, even if the parent is not otherwise the cause. (In re Alexander K. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 549, 557.) When, as here, the juvenile dependency petition alleges the emotional damage is because of a parent’s conduct, the Department must prove three things: (1) the offending parental conduct; (2) causation; and (3) serious emotional harm or the risk thereof, as evidenced by severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal or untoward aggressive behavior. (Ibid.) Where the evidence shows a parent fails to take a child’s mental health problems seriously and does not cooperate in treating those problems, the juvenile court is empowered to take jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (c). (In re Roxanne B. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 916, 922‑923.)

Again, we review the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings under the substantial evidence standard of review. (In re D.P., supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at pp. 917-918.)

2. Analysis

Here, there was evidence that son was suspended multiple times from different schools based on his aggressive, and sometimes assaultive, behavior, and there was ample evidence that he lacked the ability to express his anger in an appropriate fashion. Following his detention, he was given a mental health screening and was found in need of mental health services.

Despite this, mother told social workers she did not believe in counseling, and testified at the jurisdiction hearing that, in her opinion, counseling is ineffective in helping a person solve any problems they may have. She said she was “uncomfortable” with son receiving counseling services “outside of their church and with providers who are unknown to her.”

Mother admitted that son had anger issues, but thought these were genetic (suggesting that perhaps she believed nothing could address them). When confronted with examples of his aggressive, inappropriate behavior at school, she either minimized the severity or claimed the incidents were exaggerated by a teacher who wanted to get son out of her class.

Mother’s refusal to accept mental health services and counseling for son and her persistent minimization of the severity of his behavior at school supports a causal link between son’s emotional damage and her conduct. She leaves son unsupervised for up to four hours a day, forcing him to fend for himself for meals, entertainment and enrichment. When she is home, she will sometimes remain in bed due to her chronic pain, again limiting her ability to interact with her child. When son acts out aggressively at school, she dismisses his behavior as genetic or suggests its severity has been duly exaggerated. She then rejects the possibility that counseling could help son with his anger and behavioral issues.

Mother argues that parental fault must be established in order for the juvenile court to exercise jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (c), relying on In re Precious D. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1251.[8] However, In re Precious D. was recently disapproved by the California Supreme Court. (In re R.T. (July 20, 2017, S226416) __ Cal.5th __.)

It is clear there was substantial evidence before the juvenile court that mother’s conduct was the principal source of son’s emotional and behavioral issues. Consequently, the juvenile court did not err in finding jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (c).

III. Disposition

The jurisdictional and dispositional orders are affirmed.

---