Filed 9/15/26 In re T.R. CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE
In re T.R., a Person Coming B347798
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. No.
AND FAMILY SERVICES, 22CCJP00283C)
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
R.R.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Mark A. Davis, 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 and Jane Kwon Principal Deputy
County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.
R.R. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s July 14,
2025 finding at a six-month review hearing under Welfare and
Institutions Code section 366.21, subdivision (e),1 that it would be
detrimental to return her 18-month-old daughter T.R. (minor) to
her custody. We affirm.
The parties are familiar with the facts and procedural
history, and our opinion does not meet the criteria for
publication. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(c).) We therefore
resolve this appeal by memorandum opinion pursuant to
Standard 8.1 of the Standards of Judicial Administration and
consistent with constitutional principles (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 14
[“Decisions of the Supreme Court and courts of appeal that
determine causes shall be in writing with reasons stated”]; Lewis
v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1263, fn. omitted
[three-paragraph discussion of issue on appeal satisfies
constitutional requirement because “an opinion is not a brief in
reply to counsel’s arguments. [Citation.] In order to state the
reasons, grounds, or principles upon which a decision is based,
[an appellate court] need not discuss every case or fact raised by
counsel in support of the parties’ positions”].)
Mother appeals the court’s finding that it would be
detrimental to return minor to mother’s custody, arguing that the
Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services
(Department) did not meet its burden of proof at the six-month
review hearing, because the Department did not identify a
specific reason why minor was at risk of harm, and the risk to
1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code.
2
minor due to mother relapsing into drug use was speculative.
Because minor was an infant at the time of her initial
removal, “reunification services must be ordered for six months
from the dispositional hearing, but no longer than 12 months
from the time the child entered foster care. (§ 361.5, subd.
(a)(1)(B).)” (F.K. v. Superior Court (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 928,
934–936.) At the six-month review hearing, section 366.21,
subdivision (e) provides that “after considering the admissible
and relevant evidence, the court shall order the return of the
child to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian
unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
the return of the child to their parent or legal guardian would
create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or
physical or emotional well-being of the child.” The burden of
proof of establishing detriment by a preponderance of the
evidence rests with the Department. (§ 366.21, subd. (e).) The
same subdivision directs the court to consider the parent’s
criminal history, as well as “whether the child can be returned to
the custody of their parent who is enrolled in a certified
substance abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child
to reside with their parent. The fact that the parent is enrolled
in a certified substance abuse treatment facility shall not be, for
that reason alone, prima facie evidence of detriment. In making
its determination, the court shall review and consider the social
worker’s report and recommendations and the report and
recommendations of any child advocate appointed pursuant to
Section 356.5; and shall consider the efforts or progress, or both,
demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to
which they availed themselves of services provided . . . .”
(§ 366.21, subd. (e).)
3
“We review the juvenile court’s finding of detriment for
substantial evidence by considering whether the evidence,
contradicted or uncontradicted, supports the court’s finding.
(Georgeanne G. v. Superior Court (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 856, 864;
In re B.S. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 246, 252.) ‘We resolve all
conflicts in support of the determination, indulge in all legitimate
inferences to uphold the findings and may not substitute our
deductions for those of the juvenile court.’ (Georgeanne G., at
p. 865; accord, In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773.) ‘However,
“[s]ubstantial evidence is not synonymous with any evidence.
[Citation.] To be substantial, the evidence must be of ponderable
legal significance and must be reasonable in nature, credible, and
of solid value.” ’ (Georgeanne G., at p. 865; accord, In re J.A.
(2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 1036, 1046 [while substantial evidence
may consist of inferences, any inferences must rest on the
evidence; inferences based on speculation or conjecture cannot
support a finding].) ‘ “A trial court abuses its discretion when it
applies the wrong legal standard or its factual findings are not
supported by substantial evidence.” ’ (In re R.F. (2023) 94
Cal.App.5th 718, 728.)” (L.C. v. Superior Court (2024) 98
Cal.App.5th 1021, 1034.)
The record on appeal includes substantial evidence to
support the court’s implicit determination that it would be
detrimental to minor to return her to mother’s custody at the six-
month review hearing. Mother admitted that she began
experimenting with alcohol and marijuana more than 20 years
ago, when she was only 17 years old, and gradually moved to
hardcore drugs like cocaine and methamphetamine. She
acknowledged she had a problem with alcohol and
methamphetamine. Mother had several drug-related arrests and
4
convictions. In 2014, the juvenile court declared mother’s three
oldest children dependents based on substance use by mother and
her then-boyfriend. That dependency case ended with exit orders
granting the children’s respective fathers sole legal and physical
custody, with mother having supervised visits.
Mother later gave birth to two more children (K.R., born
January 2018 and A.R., born January 2023) both of whom were
declared dependents in June 2022 based on her past and current
use of methamphetamine and leaving the children with an
inappropriate care provider. Mother tested positive for
methamphetamine while she was pregnant with A.R. Mother
was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder on
October 26, 2023, and started attending monthly individual
counseling for most months. Minor was born in January 2024,
while the dependency case involving the half-siblings was still
ongoing. In April 2024, the juvenile court returned half-sibling
A.R., less than 18 months old at the time, to mother’s custody.
Mother attended an outpatient substance abuse program from
November 13, 2023, through April 4, 2024, and enrolled in a
subsequent program on June 10, 2024. Mother had consistent
negative drug tests from March through August 2, 2024.
However, mother had stopped meeting with her sponsor,
attending meetings, receiving medication for her anxiety, and
participating in therapy. She then relapsed on August 3, 2024,
when she found a bag of drug paraphernalia, including a pipe
with methamphetamine, while rearranging items in her storage
unit. Neither A.R. nor minor were with mother when she
encountered and took the methamphetamine, but mother
admitted she dropped minor off with a caregiver at 9 a.m., got
high at 11 a.m., and picked minor up at 4:30 p.m. the same day.
5
Mother tested positive for methamphetamine on August 6, 2024,
but did not disclose her relapse to her counselor or her social
worker. After receiving mother’s positive drug test, the
Department obtained a warrant to detain A.R. and minor, and
executed it on September 6, 2024. On November 20, 2024,
mother pleaded no contest to allegations under section 300,
subdivisions (b) and (j), that minor was at risk of harm based on
mother’s relapse and that her siblings were previously adjudged
dependents based on mother’s substance use. The court ordered
reunification services for mother to reunify with both A.R. and
minor, directing mother to participate in a full drug/alcohol
program with aftercare, weekly random and on-demand
drug/alcohol testing, a 12-step program with court card and
sponsor, a parenting class, and individual counseling to address
case issues, including mental health issues, and to take all
prescribed psychotropic medications. Mother’s visits with the
children were to be monitored.
Mother participated in reunification services and visited
with the children between December 2024 and July 2025. She
completed an inpatient residential treatment program on
December 27, 2024, and transitioned to a different inpatient
facility on December 30, 2024. Mother had two positive tests for
methamphetamine within her treatment program on March 6,
2025, but tested negative for the Department on March 6, 2025
and March 7, 2025. Mother admitted to the social worker that
after testing for the Department on March 6th, she had gone to a
smoke shop where they had illegal gambling, and people were
smoking. The positive tests at the treatment program were
possibly due to secondhand smoke exposure. Mother had been
gambling for more than 10 years, and used gambling to survive
6
and live off the profits. Mother enrolled in a new treatment
program on March 13, 2025, where she learned that gambling is
an addiction. Mother understood that she suffers from the
disease of addiction, and while some people are able to do
activities like drinking or gambling in moderation, she has a
tendency to abuse anything she can and she has to be cautious
because she is not like other people.
Mother completed the inpatient treatment program on
May 4, 2025, and would transition to a new program providing a
lower level of care. However, on June 10, 2025, when a social
worker asked mother for proof of intake in the new program,
mother initially said she would provide proof of enrollment, but
then admitted she was not at the new program’s facility because
the program had advised that if her children were returned to
mother, the program could not guarantee there would be space
for mother and her children. Mother could not remember when
she had left the program and was hesitant and evasive when
answering questions about where she was living. She initially
responded “yes” when the social worker asked if she was staying
with a friend or at a hotel, eventually giving the hotel name and
room number, but also saying she was going to be moving rooms.
Mother did not attend any substance abuse programs between
May 7, 2025 and June 17, 2025. On June 17, 2025, mother
provided a proof of intake form for a different treatment program.
Mother’s prior program could not guarantee that her children
could live with her unless she enrolled while she still had custody
of her children. However, mother’s newest treatment program,
where mother started attending programming on June 23, 2025,
would permit children to be returned to mother’s care while she
was participating in the program.
7
Based on the Department’s reports of mother’s monitored
visits with A.R. and minor, while there were no direct safety
concerns raised with respect to minor, mother sometimes
appeared tired and would leave the room where the children were
for extended periods of time. On a few occasions, mother was not
paying sufficient attention to A.R. and his needs and safety. Both
A.R. and minor resided with paternal grandmother, who
expressed that during visits, mother would ignore A.R. in favor of
minor, and A.R. was starting to exhibit negative behaviors. In
addition, paternal grandmother reported that mother was driving
with an expired license.
The Department reported that when mother is not under
strict supervision from an inpatient program, she fails to live a
healthy and sober lifestyle, continues to make poor choices and
fails to implement the tools and skills from the programs. The
Department wanted mother to show continued progress in her
program, focusing on her sobriety and coping skills before the
children are returned to her care. The Department recommended
for reunification services to continue for minor, but to terminate
reunification services for A.R., because mother had already
received 18 months of services for A.R. On July 14, 2025, the
juvenile court ordered six months of additional reunification
services for mother.
Mother argues that her ongoing engagement in services,
particularly her enrollment in a residential treatment program
that permitted children, and her strong bond with minor, made
any finding of detriment speculative, and that the Department
failed to identify any specific risk posed to minor if she were
placed with mother at the residential treatment program.
Mother points to M.G. v. Superior Court (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th
8
646, 658–662, to argue that a detriment finding cannot be based
on speculation. However, we agree with the Department that
M.G. is distinguishable because in that case, the mother had
maintained her sobriety for close to three years, the court stated
on the record that mother’s sobriety was not in question at an 18-
month review hearing, and the only risk was a speculative one
that mother’s relationship with a former boyfriend would put her
sobriety in jeopardy. (Id. at p. 653, 657−658.) In the case before
us, in contrast, the length and severity of mother’s substance
abuse history, her numerous prior relapses, and her issues with
addiction and mental health—including her recent
acknowledgment of an addiction to gambling that exposed mother
to drug use as reflected by her March 6, 2025 positive
methamphetamine test result—provide sufficient evidence to
support a finding of detriment for a child who only lived with
mother for the first 7 months of her life, and was only 18 months
old at the time of the 6-month review hearing. We find
substantial evidence supported the court’s implicit determination
that returning minor to mother’s custody would be detrimental.
9
DISPOSITION
The July 14, 2025 order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
MOOR, J.
WE CONCUR:
HOFFSTADT, P. J.
KIM (D.), J.
10