Filed 7/9/26 In re A.D. CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT
In re A.D., et al, Persons Coming B341370
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
______________________________ Los Angeles County
LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. No. CK14637C–E
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
A.D. et al., Minors, etc.
Appellants;
MANUEL B.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Gabriela Shapiro, Juvenile Court Referee.
Affirmed.
Liana Serobian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Appellants A.D. and H.D.
Jamie A. Moran, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Kelly G. Emling, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________
INTRODUCTION
Since 2017, appellant Manuel B. has been the legal
guardian of Al.D., A.D., and H.D. In 2023, Manuel B. agreed to
accept another child, foster teen Aiden T., into his home. In late
2023, Manuel B. discovered Aiden T. had drugs and a gun in the
home. This was the second time Manuel B. found Aiden T. with a
gun in his possession. Manuel B. took the contraband and Aiden
T. to a motel where he hoped to counsel Aiden T. Both he and
Aiden T. were later arrested. (Aiden T. is not a party to or
subject of this appeal.)
The Los Angeles County Department of Children and
Family Services (the Department) filed a supplemental petition
under Welfare and Institutions Code section 3871 to remove all
three children from Manuel B.’s custody; they were detained and
later returned to his custody. Manuel B. now contends the
juvenile court should have dismissed the supplemental petition
once it decided not to remove the children from his care because,
at the time of the court’s adjudication of the petition, the children
were not facing a current risk of harm. He also contends
1
Further undesignated statutory references are to the
Welfare and Institutions Code.
2
substantial evidence does not support the court’s order sustaining
the supplemental petition. We affirm.
A. Procedural Background
Over 10 years ago, on April 17, 2015, the Department filed
a petition pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b)
alleging that Al.D., A.D., and H.D. had been physically abused by
their mother, who struck them with belts and her hands. The
petition also alleged domestic violence between the children’s
mother and her male companion in the presence of the children
and that both the children’s parents had a history of substance
abuse posing a risk of harm to the children.
On July 16, 2015, the juvenile court sustained all counts of
the petition with some interlineations to the allegations against
the father. On August 16, 2015, the juvenile court declared the
children dependents of the court, removed them from parental
custody, and bypassed reunification services for the parents
under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) because they had earlier
failed to reunify with another child and failed to make reasonable
efforts to treat the problems that led to that child’s removal. On
October 4, 2016, the court selected legal guardianship as the
permanent plan for the children. On January 3, 2017, the
juvenile court named Manuel B. the legal guardian for all three
children. Manuel B. knew the family; he had acted as a care
provider for the children’s disabled mother.
In the following five years, the juvenile court held regularly
scheduled six-month status hearings on the legal guardianship,
finding the children’s placement with Manuel B. appropriate. As
late as May 15, 2023, the juvenile court found the children’s case
plan and placement appropriate and confirmed “placement in
3
foster care with a permanent plan of legal guardianship” as the
appropriate plan for each of them.
B. Events Leading Up to the Supplemental Petition
When the initial petition was filed in 2015, Manuel B. was
identified as a family friend and the mother’s in-home caregiver
who knew the children and had cared for them in the past.
Manuel B. was interviewed about the allegations of the petition.
He was later appointed legal guardian for the children. The
guardianship case was to remain open for periodic court review
until the children reached the age of majority.
In 2023, Manuel B. agreed to accept foster child Aiden T.
for placement in his home. (He had been opening his home to
other teenaged foster children.) On October 19, 2023, Manuel B.
discovered Aiden T. had an assault rifle in his school bag and
wrested it away from him. Upon finding the rifle, Manuel B.
called the police. Aiden T. ran away from the home but was soon
arrested and placed in juvenile hall. Police found a fully loaded
30 round high-capacity magazine in the school bag as well. The
children were scared and terrified. Manuel B. wanted Aiden T.
placed elsewhere.
On November 13, 2023, in response to learning that Aiden
T. and other foster children had been referred to the home, the
juvenile court ordered the Department to speak with Manuel B.
“about the referrals and having additional children move into the
home, and the negative impact on the children.” The Department
and Manuel B. met on November 15, 2023, to discuss safety in
the home and the negative impact of housing other foster youths
in the home. Manuel B. agreed to be vigilant in ensuring safety
with backpack and room searches and agreed he would make
sure all the youth in his home were safe and followed the rules.
4
On December 18, 2023, the juvenile court continued to find
the children’s placement with Manuel B. appropriate.
On May 20, 2024, the Department received a referral that
the previous day Manuel B. had been hospitalized with a broken
wrist after an ATV accident, may have left the children
unsupervised, and had tested positive for fentanyl, opioids, and
amphetamines while hospitalized. Manuel B. provided medical
records showing the drugs were prescribed by his primary care
physician and given to him intravenously at the hospital. Upon
inquiry, Manuel B. showed the social worker that his medications
were in a locked cabinet at home. Manuel B. agreed not to
transport the children while using the medication and to submit
to drug testing. He also had the support of family members to
step in for him to help with transportation.
C. Supplemental Petition Under Section 387
On June 11, 2024, the Department advised the court that
Manuel B. had taken Aiden T. to a motel in the middle of the
night on June 8, 2024, leaving the other children unattended
overnight and uninformed about his whereabouts. The motel
manager had called the police upon observing “a guest possibly
brandishing a firearm.” Police arrived and found both Manuel B.
and Aiden T. apparently “under the influence of an unknown
controlled substance(s).” Aiden T. was passed out; he later
admitted using Xanax that night. Officers found a firearm,
ammunition, gasoline, methamphetamine and a jar of Vaseline in
the motel room. Aiden T. told police he and Manuel B. had come
to the motel to get away from the other children in the home.
Police arrested Manuel B. on charges of child endangerment and
possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon. The
5
Department applied for and obtained a removal order for Al.D.,
A.D., and H.D.
Upon further inquiry, Manuel B. told a department
investigator the gun belonged to Aiden T. He said he brought
Aiden T. to the motel room to talk to him. He later told the
children’s mother that he wanted to talk to Aiden T. outside the
home because if something happened in the home, he would not
be able to physically protect the children due to the injuries he
had suffered in the ATV accident. (He had suffered a broken
wrist and ribs and a hernia.) Aiden T. denied knowing about the
gun. He stated it belonged to Manuel B.
The investigator went to the family home and saw the
children outside. A.D. said their adult cousin Naima A. was
watching them. Naima A. allowed the investigator into the
home, where he found in Aiden T.’s room two empty bottles of
Adderall, cough medicine Children’s Delsym, brass knuckles,
Farmapram, Promethazine DM Oral Solution, and
Promethazine-DM. Manuel B.’s medicine cabinet was unlocked.
In the living room where Manuel B. had his bed were one and
one-half boxes of ammunition and a box of individually packed
two-dollar bills. In the garage were a machete, a pocketknife,
marijuana, rolling papers, and a flavored cigarette.
The children were interviewed. They reported that if
Manuel B. was away, he would normally have another adult
there to watch them. Al.D. told the investigator he heard Manuel
B. and Aiden T. leave the home at approximately 2:30 a.m. when
he was up playing video games. Naima A. said she spent the
entire night there; Al.D. said she was with them, went home
during the night and returned the next morning. All denied
6
observing Manuel B. use drugs or engage in inappropriate
behavior. All wanted to be returned to him.
Manuel B. was interviewed on June 9, 2024. He said he
discovered a handgun in Aiden T.’s room, directed the child to
collect the gun and other improper items, including drugs, and
took him to a motel room to talk to him about his bad behavior.
He chose to speak to Aiden T. at the motel because he did not
want Aiden T. to get another gun charge because he was on
probation for his earlier possession of a rifle.
Manuel B. was arrested before he could discuss the gun
with Aiden T. Manuel B. said the drug Farmapram was an anti-
anxiety medication produced in Mexico which Aiden T. had
acquired at school. The Vaseline in the hotel room belonged to
Aiden T.; he used it for dry lips caused by his drug use. Manuel
B. denied using marijuana and said it, as well as the firearm,
belonged to Aiden T. Manuel B. denied owning a gun. He said he
was trying to help Aiden T. on the date of the incident. Manuel
B. was responsive and cooperative with the Department. He was
criminally charged with possession of a controlled substance
while armed, child endangerment, and possession of a firearm
and ammunition by a felon.
On June 13, 2024, the Department filed a supplemental
petition under section 387, alleging Manuel B. created a
detrimental and endangering condition in the home because
prescription medication, brass knuckles, boxes of ammunition, a
machete, a pocketknife, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia were
found in the home within the children’s access. The medicine
cabinet was unlocked with the medication inside. The petition
also alleged that on June 8, 2024, law enforcement found Manuel
B. in a motel room with Aiden T, along with a firearm,
7
ammunition and narcotics. Aiden T. was transported to a
hospital and tested positive for marijuana, benzodiazepine, and
opioids. The petition listed the criminal charges against Manuel
B. and noted he had previously been convicted in 2004 and 2005
for possession of a controlled substance. Finally, the petition
alleged Manuel B. left the home on June 7, 2024, for an extended
period of time and failed to make an appropriate plan for the
supervision and care of the children.
On June 14, 2024, the juvenile court detained all three
children on the supplemental petition. The children ultimately
moved back into the family home with Manuel B.’s niece as
caregiver. Manuel B. moved out of the home and entered into a
rental agreement with the caregiver.
In its jurisdiction/disposition report filed July 30, 2024, the
Department reported Manuel B. stated that once he found the
gun in Aiden T.’s bedroom he became “emotional, distracted and
confused”; he did not want law enforcement to take Aiden T. so
he took him to the motel to talk to him. “It was a crazy night I
had 3 kids to protect so I removed everything I found.” He said
he had asked the Department several times to remove Aiden T.
from the home, but the Department kept reminding him that
Aiden T. had abandonment issues and had been re-placed often.
Manuel B. had a childhood similar to Aiden T.’s and thought he
could help him, so he agreed to keep working with Aiden T.
The Department faulted Manuel B. for poor judgment in
failing to contact law enforcement when he discovered Aiden T.
had a gun in the home for a second time. It questioned the logic
of Manuel B.’s reasoning for going to the motel with the gun and
drugs. It concluded Manuel B. had placed the children in a
detrimental and endangering home environment and failed to
8
make an appropriate plan for the children’s safety and
supervision, recommending removal of the children from Manuel
B.’s care and an appropriate case plan for Manuel B.
On August 30, 2024, the Department filed a first amended
petition adding an allegation that Manuel B. established a
detrimental and endangering condition for Aiden T. based on the
facts set out above.
Before the adjudication hearing set for September 30, 2024,
the Department recommended family reunification services and a
comprehensive case plan for Manuel B. which included random
weekly drug testing, parenting education, individual counseling,
and unannounced home calls. At the adjudication hearing the
juvenile court interlineated the petition and found true only the
failure to protect count. The interlineated allegation read in full:
The children’s legal guardian, Manuel B., “created a detrimental
and endangering home environment for the children, in that the
legal guardian allowed another minor youth to reside in the home
and have full access to the children even after finding that youth
in possession of a firearm the previous year. Additionally, the
legal guardian should have known that the youth was known to
possess unlawful substances and illegal weapons and that they
were in the home. Such a detrimental and endangering home
environment established by the legal guardian, endangers the
children’s physical and emotional health, safety and well-being
and places the children at risk of serious physical harm, damage,
and danger.”
In making its findings, the juvenile court observed that
“[T]he worst part of this entire situation is that all three of the
kids are really good kids and I think that [the] description of
them being intelligent kids, good kids, they don’t get into trouble,
9
they do well in school, is a reflection not only on themselves but
also on the care they have received during the past decade that
Mr. [B.] has been their legal guardian. But it’s truly unfortunate
that in trying to save this other youth, Mr. [B.] really left these
kids floating without an oar. [¶]. . . [¶] And I really think that the
biggest fault that I note of the legal guardian in this particular
instance is his kinship of sorts with the background that the
other youth has and finding a similarity with Mr. [B.’s]
background caused him to just completely disregard his
relationship with and his obligations to these children.” The
juvenile court ultimately concluded: “So while I’m not going to
sustain S2 and S3, I believe that I need to sustain . . . a count
that indicates that the legal guardian created a detrimental and
endangering home for the children in that he allowed this other
youth in the home and that he should have had knowledge of the
potential risk of firearms and illegal substances being in the
home because of that youth and that that placed these children at
risk of harm. [¶] So . . . I’ll write it out naming the legal guardian.
Dismissing S2 and S3 as the court finds the department has not
met its burden by a preponderance of the evidence to sustain
those counts. [¶] And the court is going to note that the children
remain dependents of the court pursuant to the Welfare and
Institutions Code and that it appears that based on this act that
the prior disposition was ineffective in protecting the youth.”
The court ordered the children released to Manuel B.,
finding the Department had not met its burden of proof as to
removal. It changed the terms and conditions of the prior
disposition by ordering the Department to provide Manuel B. and
the children with family maintenance services, random weekly
on-demand drug testing and counseling for Manuel B. and
10
unannounced visits to the home. It ordered the Department not
to place additional children in the home. Finally, it ordered that
any other residents in or visitors to the home be approved by the
Department. The court particularly cautioned Manuel B. about
the necessity of individual counseling “to talk about your own
trauma . . . and make sure that you don’t have any kind of a
savior complex with anyone else. [¶] I think that you should
reflect on what you’ve been able to provide to these kids in the
last decade and recognize that that’s an accomplishment and an
achievement and not all of us are here to pay it forward in
another way. And I almost hate to say that to you, but I think
there are safer and better ways for you to do what you tried to
do.” The court concluded with a statement to the children: “I
want to thank you for being who you are and showing me the
light in this case by being standup individuals, speaking the
truth, and not backing down. And that’s really important so your
voice was heard today. [¶] And that’s another reason to be proud,
Mr. [B.], and keep that in mind moving forward.”
Manuel B., A.D., and H.D. appealed. The children have
simply joined Manuel B.’s briefing so we will discuss the issues as
presented in Manuel B.’s appeal.
DISCUSSION
Manuel B. argues the juvenile court should have dismissed
the section 387 petition after it determined removal of the
children was not warranted. He also contends the Department
did not prove the allegations sustained by the court in the first
amended supplemental petition. We disagree with both
contentions.
11
A. Standard of Review
We review the court’s jurisdictional and dispositional
findings on a section 387 supplemental petition for substantial
evidence. Evidence is substantial if it is reasonable, credible, and
of solid value. 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. The appellant has the burden of showing there is no
evidence of a sufficiently substantial nature to support the
finding or order. (In re T.W. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1161–
1162.)
We review issues of law de novo. (In re Javier G. (2006)
137 Cal.App.4th 453, 459.)
B. The Juvenile Court Did Not Err in Declining to
Dismiss the Section 387 Petition.
Manuel B. contends, as a matter of law, that a section 387
petition is used only when it is necessary to remove a child from
the custody of a caregiver. Manuel B. argues that by the time of
the juvenile court’s findings, Aiden T. had been removed from the
home. He contends: “Removing Aiden, as unfortunate and
troubled a young man as he was, was enough to restore peace and
order to this home.” Manuel B. also argues he was completely
cooperative in following the Department’s recommendations for
his own case plan, so that by the time of the jurisdictional
hearing on October 2, 2024, the children were not at risk of harm
from the matters alleged. Manuel B. contends that once removal
12
was off the table, the section 387 petition should have been
dismissed. We disagree.
Section 387 permits the filing of a supplemental petition
when it becomes apparent that the previous disposition “has not
been effective in the rehabilitation or protection of the child.”
(§ 387, subd. (b).) If the petition requests changes or
modifications of a previous order by removing a child from the
physical custody of a parent, guardian, relative or friend and
directing placement in a foster home or commitment to a private
or county institution, there must be a noticed hearing upon the
supplemental petition. (Id., subd. (a).)
California Rules of Court, rule 5.560(c) provides that a
“supplemental petition must be used if petitioner concludes that
a previous disposition has not been effective in the protection of a
child declared dependent under section 300 and seeks a more
restrictive level of physical custody.” A more restrictive level of
custody is placement in the home of the person entitled to legal
custody; placement in the home of a noncustodial parent;
placement in the home of a relative or friend; placement in a
foster home; or commitment to a private institution. (Ibid.)
The hearing on a supplemental petition is bifurcated into
an adjudicatory hearing on the merits of the petition and a
disposition hearing on the need for the removal of the child from
the current level of placement. (In re Javier G., supra,
137 Cal.App.4th at p.460.) The ultimate issue on a supplemental
petition is limited to whether the previous disposition was
effective in the rehabilitation or protection of the child. (Ibid.)
In re Javier G. is apt. There the mother contended as a
matter of law that a section 387 petition cannot be used to
remove a dependent child from parental custody for the purpose
13
of rehabilitation rather than for protection. She pointed out that
the focus of dependency proceedings is to protect a child from
danger or actual harm and that by the time of the adjudication
hearing, the actual harm posed to her child had dissipated. The
court of appeal disagreed, holding that a section 387 petition can
be sustained on facts supporting an allegation that the previous
disposition has not been effective in the rehabilitation of the
child. (In re Javier G., supra, 137 Cal.App.4th at p. 459.) The
court concluded that the term “rehabilitation” in section 387
suggests the restoration of the child’s mental or physical health
by therapeutic measures, retraining or reeducation. (Id. at
pp. 459–460.)
This rehabilitative purpose is a basis to reject the
argument that dismissal is mandated when the child’s physical
safety is no longer at stake. That the juvenile court eschewed
removal in favor of beneficial additional placement conditions
and measures short of removal comports with section 387’s
purpose.
We conclude that the juvenile court’s disposition modifying
the terms of the placement order without removing the children
does not warrant dismissal of the section 387 petition. Indeed,
the California Rules of Court mandate that section 387
supplemental petitions are to be treated and adjudicated in the
same manner as initial petitions. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
5.565(d) [procedures required for initial hearings applicable to
supplemental petitions].) Initial petitions are not dismissed just
because the court, after finding the allegations of the petition
true, disagrees with the remedy suggested by the petitioning
agency. The court fashions the remedy it deems appropriate
under the circumstances found true. Indeed, the juvenile court
14
has broad discretion to determine what would best serve and
protect the child’s interest and to fashion a dispositional order.
(In re Javier G., supra, 137 Cal.App.4th at p. 462.)
Here the juvenile court found true that Manuel B. had
created a detrimental and endangering home environment for the
three children when he allowed another youth, whom he knew to
possess guns and drugs, to reside in the home with full access to
the children, risking their physical safety and emotional health.
Thus both protection of their physical safety and rehabilitation
due to the emotional and psychological harm they suffered were
at issue.
The court then considered whether the prior disposition
was still effective in protecting and rehabilitating the children.
The court concluded the previous order was not effective.
Although the court allowed the children to remain in Manuel B.’s
care and custody, it added more conditions to the guardianship
and created a case plan for Manuel B. himself for the protection
and rehabilitation of the children. This change was important
because Manuel B. had revealed that since the initial order
appointing him guardian, he had been diagnosed with bipolar
disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder and was receiving mental
health services, individual therapy and medication management.
Aiden T.’s removal from the home did not solve the problem
of Manuel B.’s poor judgment in addressing Aiden T.’s problems
to the detriment of the children and, most importantly, Manuel
B.’s dismissal of the children’s fears for their own safety because
of Aiden T.’s residence with them. Manuel B. himself admitted “I
got lost in trying to help him.” He did get lost, to the detriment of
the three children who experienced reasonable fear for their
physical safety and whose lives were upended by Manuel B.’s
15
singular focus on Aiden T. and decision not to heed the fears of
his longtime wards. Manuel B.’s focus blinded him to Aiden T.’s
negative impact on the three other children. This poor judgment
caused the court to have concerns about Manuel B. himself as a
guardian and to order services for Manuel B. to assist him in his
continued care and custody of the children. The court’s remedy,
short of removal, to further the children’s mental health and
physical safety did not warrant dismissal of the petition.
C. Substantial Evidence Supports the Allegations of the
First Amended Petition
Manuel B. next argues that substantial evidence does not
support the order sustaining the interlineated petition.
Jurisdictional findings should be made only where the
evidence supports a finding the children are at a present risk of
harm from the matters alleged. (In re M.M. (2015)
240 Cal.App.4th 703, 719 [basic question under section 300 is
whether circumstances at the time of the hearing subject the
minor to the defined risk of harm].) Manuel B. argues that
because Aiden T. was removed from the home on the night of the
motel event, he posed no danger to the children. He adds that
because he was so cooperative in taking care of his own mental
health needs, as recommended by the Department, neither does
he pose further danger to the children.
That Manuel B. cooperated fully is a true statement and we
applaud him for his persistence in looking after his mental
health, improving his parenting skills, and testing negative for
all substances. His diligence is a testament to how much he cares
for the children, and the record reflects the children love him
dearly in return. Notably, Manuel B. does not dispute the facts
that form the basis of the section 387 supplemental petition. He
16
simply argues the facts had materially changed by the time of the
jurisdictional hearing because Aiden T. was out of the home,
Manuel B. was undergoing lots of therapy and parenting
education, and the children wanted to be back with him.
A year elapsed between Manuel B.’s discovery of Aiden T.’s
first weapon and his discovery of the second weapon along with
drugs. The children’s welfare suffered as Manuel B. did not act
on their fears for their safety. A mere five months elapsed
between the motel incident and the jurisdictional hearing. That
the juvenile court did not immediately rule that circumstances
had changed enough in five months to dismiss the petition is
expected and reasonable. That the juvenile court was concerned
that Manuel B.’s judgment was impaired is not without support
in the record. In its reports the Department aptly observed that
Manuel B.’s “description and rationale for taking foster child
Aiden to a motel in the middle of the night with a gun and drugs
does not make any rational sense.” Manuel B. had been the
children’s legal guardian for over seven years. He dismissed
their concerns to focus on a foster child he had tended for one
year. His behavior taking Aiden T. to the motel was, at best,
inexplicable. Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s
jurisdictional findings that the children were still at risk of harm
at the time of the hearing due to Manuel B.’s actions, not just
Aiden T.’s.
17
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
STRATTON, P. J.
We concur:
WILEY, J.
SCHERB, J.
18