Filed 7/27/26 In re H.D. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re H.D. et al., Persons Coming Under
the Juvenile Court Law.
E087150
RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, (Super.Ct.No. DPRI2500278)
Plaintiff and Respondent, OPINION
v.
K.W.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Walter H. Kubelun,
Judge. Affirmed.
Jacob I. Olson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Minh C. Tran, County Counsel, Jamila T. Purnell, Assistant County Counsel and
Prabhath D. Shettigar, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
INTRODUCTION
K.W. (mother) challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the juvenile
court’s dispositional order removing her children, H.D., R.D., and T.D. (the children),
from her care under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 361, subdivision (c)(1). We
affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On June 25, 2025, the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services
(DPSS) filed a section 300 petition on behalf of the children. At the time, H.D was six
years old, R.D. was five years old, and T.D. was two years old. The petition alleged they
came within section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect). Specifically, the petition
alleged that mother and A.D. (father)2 neglected the needs of H.D., as they failed to
assure her attendance at multiple doctor appointments. Also, mother and father (the
parents) displayed a limited ability to ensure the children’s safety, in that, on June 19,
2025, H.D. and R.D. were missing for about one hour, the police were called to locate
them, and the parents admitted they allowed the children to play in unsupervised areas of
their apartment complex. Further, both parents had unresolved histories of substance
abuse and tested positive for methamphetamine during the investigation. Other
allegations included that mother suffered from postpartum depression and failed to seek
1 All further statutory references will be to the Welfare and Institutions Code
unless otherwise indicated.
2 Father is not a party to this appeal.
2
ongoing treatment or take her prescribed medication, and the children were residing in an
unhealthy living environment, while in the parents’ custody.
The social worker filed a detention report recommending the court detain the
children. The report stated that, on June 16, 2025, DPSS received a referral for general
neglect of H.D. It was reported that she had juvenile arthritis and required monthly visits
with a rheumatologist and one to two infusions per month; also, H.D.’s primary care
physician requested to see her monthly to monitor her. However, mother failed to bring
H.D. to any of her scheduled appointments. H.D. had not been seen by a rheumatologist
since March 2025 and had missed a total of 17 appointments since January 2025
(including primary care, rheumatologist, and infusions).
In addition, on June 19, 2025, DPSS received a high-risk referral alleging neglect
of the children by the parents. Mother had contacted law enforcement at 1:20 p.m. that
day and reported H.D. and R.D. missing. It was reported that the parents were jittery,
their faces were flushed and pale, and their eyes were wide open, although officers did
not observe drugs or paraphernalia in the home. Mother said she looked everywhere for
the children and waited 45 minutes before calling the police. Officers and a helicopter
were dispatched to locate them. The officers went door-to-door in the apartment complex
and were informed by neighbors that the children were always running around or playing
outside unattended. After one hour, the police located H.D. and R.D. at a friend’s
apartment.
The social worker made an unannounced visit to the family’s residence on June
23, 2025. The social worker observed that the front window of their apartment was
3
broken; mother said she had lost her keys a few days ago, and father broke the window to
get inside. Mother said the electricity in the apartment was disconnected the day before
because their welfare check was delayed and they could not pay the bill on time. There
was limited food due to the lack of refrigeration. The apartment reportedly had a foul
odor of pets and body odor. Mother disclosed that she was diagnosed with postpartum
depression after R.D.’s birth. She was prescribed medication at the time but was no
longer taking it or participating in therapy. Mother confirmed missing two consecutive
appointments for H.D. and admitted she should have ensured H.D.’s medical needs were
met. Regarding H.D. and R.D. being missing, mother explained she was inside the
apartment changing T.D. Mother said it was common for the children to play in the grass
area of the complex unsupervised.
Mother admitted to a history of methamphetamine and prescription pill use. She
was observed to have fresh sores on her face and arms, rapid and disjointed speech,
jittery mannerisms, and tangential and possibly paranoid thoughts. Her emotions
vacillated rapidly, in that she would be calm and understanding, sad and disappointed,
and angry and yelling.
Throughout the interview, father sat on the couch, looking down. R.D. and T.D.
ran in and out of the apartment multiple times and wandered off. The parents did not
show a sense of urgency to follow after them, despite the social worker prompting them
or following the children herself. The apartment complex was very busy with foot and
vehicle traffic and was situated on a main street, which posed additional safety concerns
for the young children.
4
The social worker requested the parents to submit to a saliva test, and they both
tested positive for methamphetamine. The parents then admitted to relapsing in April
2025, and mother admitted she last used at 5:00 a.m. that day. The parents denied using
drugs in front of the children, indicating they would take turns using in their car, while
the other cared for the children.
The social worker inquired about any friends or family members the children may
be able to stay with while the parents sobered up. The parents offered to have the
children stay with the paternal grandmother, who was contacted by phone. The paternal
grandmother indicated she could pick up the children after 5:00 p.m. but would be unable
to care for them for long, due to her limited mobility; she also had an upcoming hip
surgery. The parents said there was no one else close by that could assist with
supervision. Another social worker reviewed the prior investigations associated with the
paternal grandmother’s home, and due to immediate safety concerns for the children, it
was determined that R.D. and T.D. would be taken into protective custody on exigent
circumstances. H.D. was out with the paternal uncle at the time.
The court held a detention hearing on June 26, 2025, and detained the children in
foster care.
Jurisdiction/Disposition
The social worker filed a jurisdiction/disposition report on July 25, 2025,
recommending that the court sustain the petition, declare the children dependents of the
5
court, and order reunification services for mother (and father).3 The social worker noted
the children were placed together in a foster home on June 23, 2025.
The social worker reported that H.D. was diagnosed with juvenile arthritis on
February 2, 2020. The parents failed to take her to required infusions, and they missed
medical appointments several times in June 2024, July 2024, September 2024, October
2024, November 2024, December 2024, January 2025, February 2025, March 2025,
April 2025, May 2025, and June 2025.
The social worker further reported that, since 2012, mother has had an unresolved
history of substance abuse, as reported through her prior welfare history. The social
worker stated that the parents had participated in many services over years, but failed to
benefit from them, as evidenced by their continued substance abuse and neglect of the
children. During a July 2012 investigation, mother was reportedly using
methamphetamine. She lived with the maternal grandparents, who admitted mother was
addicted to drugs and said they tested her regularly. They also said she had completed a
treatment program. Mother also reported that she completed a rehabilitation program.
During another investigation, mother was assessed on January 2, 2023, and she reported
being sober for several years, “but was afraid of relapsing due to being exhausted, having
no breaks, and little to no help.” During an investigation in 2023, mother admitted to
having a history of using methamphetamine and Percocet. She said she last used
3 Since father is not a party to this appeal, the rest of the opinion will focus on
mother.
6
methamphetamine in April 2016 and that she attended a substance abuse program at MFI
Recovery Center (MFI) in 2022.
Mother’s case plan included the requirements that she participate in general
counseling, complete a parenting education program, submit to random drug testing,
complete a substance a disorders screening, and complete a substance abuse treatment
program, if deemed appropriate. She agreed to participate in the required services. She
also agreed to on-demand drug testing prior to visits.
On July 30, 2025, mother set the jurisdictional hearing for contest.
On September 10, 2025, the social worker filed an addendum report and stated the
foster parent reported that H.D. had a rheumatology visit on July 28, 2025, and her
infusions will continue monthly, with plans to transition to bi-monthly. The social
worker reported that H.D. remained medically fragile due to her ongoing treatment and
monthly infusions. The social worker further reported that, on August 25, 2025, the
parents completed an on-demand saliva drug test and tested negative.
On September 3, 2025, the social worker conducted an unannounced visit at the
parents’ home, and it was observed to be clean and well-maintained. The kitchen had
adequate food, and the home had running water and working utilities. Mother reported
that she was enrolled in outpatient substance abuse services at MFI and that she did not
qualify for inpatient services. The social worker had not received updated documents
from MFI indicating mother’s progress. Later that day, mother provided documentation
regarding her services, which indicated she was making significant progress and was
testing negative for all substances.
7
The social worker reported that, within the past month, mother had consistently
tested negative for all substances with DPSS and MFI. Mother had been attending the
children’s medical appointments regularly and was demonstrating increased awareness of
their medical and emotional needs. The social worker attached a letter from MFI
reporting that mother enrolled in outpatient services on June 26, 2025, was participating
in group sessions, individual counseling, and individual therapy services, and she had
been testing negative. The letter also said that upon completion of treatment, mother
would be provided aftercare referrals and recommendations, including continued care at a
lower level. Despite these improvements, DPSS remained concerned for the children’s
well-being, as mother had only maintained sobriety for a little over a month and the
children were of a vulnerable age. The social worker recommended continued court
oversight.
On September 16, 2025, mother submitted a certificate of completion of the Triple
P Positive Parenting Program.
On September 17, 2025, the court continued the contested jurisdictional hearing at
the request of mother and the children.
On October 17, 2025, the social worker filed another addendum report and stated
that mother sent an email on October 7, 2025, verifying she was still participating in
services at MFI, and she tested negative for all substances in September 2025. Further,
visits between her and the children had been appropriate, and, as of October 16, 2025,
mother completed the parenting education classes through Parentz@Work. On October
16, 2025, the social worker received urine test results indicating mother tested negative
8
for all substances. Nonetheless, DPSS was concerned for the children’s well-being, as
mother had only maintained sobriety for a little over two months. The social worker still
continued to recommend court oversight to ensure mother remained engaged in services,
sustained her sobriety, and consistently met the children’s medical needs.
On October 22, 2025, the court held the continued jurisdiction/disposition hearing.
County counsel requested the court find the allegations true and sustain the petition, grant
reunification services and order supervised visitation, with mother drug testing prior to
visits. The court struck the allegation concerning the condition of the parents’ apartment
but sustained the rest of the petition and declared the children dependents of the court.
As to disposition, mother’s counsel requested return of the children to parental
care, or if the court was not inclined to order return, then an extended 29-day visit or trial
period, or at a minimum unsupervised visitation. She asserted that DPSS’s initial
concerns were primarily related to mother’s past substance use, missed medical
appointments for H.D, the condition of the home, and one incident where the children
were briefly unsupervised; however, the evidence showed there was no longer a
substantial risk of harm regarding those concerns. Mother’s counsel recognized that
mother had only maintained sobriety for a few months but asserted that “the law does not
require perfection before reunification,” and noted mother had made great progress, as
they were close to the four or five-month mark. Mother’s counsel further argued there
were clear and reasonable means to protect the children without removing them from
mother’s care, suggesting the court could order random drug testing, require proof of
participation in treatment, require verification of H.D.’s medical appointments, and allow
9
unannounced home visits by DPSS. She concluded there was no current substantial risk
to the children, and there were clear and reasonable means to protect them in mother’s
care.
County counsel argued that mother had a long history of substance abuse, and at
this point, she had maintained sobriety for just a few months and had not demonstrated
long-term sobriety.
After hearing arguments from the parties, the court expressed its concern about the
parents being under the influence at the time of the initial contact, the officers being
informed the children always ran around or played outside unattended, and the children
being missing for up to an hour before the police found them, placing them at risk of
serious consequences; additionally, H.D. was medically fragile and her needs were not
being met. The court further noted that mother had a long history of substance abuse, had
been through treatment before, and continued to use controlled substances while failing
to care for the children. The court commended mother for participating in MFI and
testing negative but noted she had not completed the program yet. It stated that, once the
program was complete, they would move to relapse prevention, which is important in this
case, since mother was provided with services before and relapsed. The court concluded
it was premature to return the children to mother at that point in time. It found there was
clear and convincing evidence of the circumstances in section 361, subdivision (c)(1),
removed the children from mother’s custody, and ordered her to participate in the
reunification services set forth in the case plan.
10
DISCUSSION
Mother contends the juvenile court’s removal order is unsupported by substantial
evidence. She also argues the court failed to consider reasonable means to protect the
children short of removal from her home. We disagree.
A. Relevant Law
“Before the court may order a child physically removed from his or her parents, it
must find, by clear and convincing evidence, the child would be at substantial risk of
harm if returned home and there are no reasonable means by which the child can be
protected without removal.” (In re Hailey T. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 139, 145-146
(Hailey T.); § 361, subd. (c)(1).)
“The court shall consider, as a reasonable means to protect the minor, each of the
following: (A) The option of removing an offending parent, guardian, or Indian
custodian from the home. [¶] (B) Allowing a nonoffending parent, guardian, or Indian
custodian to retain physical custody as long as that parent, guardian, or Indian custodian
presents a plan acceptable to the court demonstrating that they will be able to protect the
child from future harm.” (§ 361, subd. (c)(1).)
“The standard of review of a dispositional order on appeal is the substantial
evidence test.” (Hailey T., supra, at p. 146.) “Under this standard, we determine whether
there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, which supports the
conclusion of the trier of fact.” (In re G.C. (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 257, 265.) However,
where the burden of proof supporting the juvenile court’s order requires a showing by
clear and convincing evidence, as does the removal order in this case, our review must
11
take into consideration that heightened burden of proof. (Conservatorship of O.B. (2020)
9 Cal.5th 989, 995.)
Thus, “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., supra, 9
Cal.5th 989, 995-996.)
“All evidentiary conflicts are resolved in favor of the respondent, and where more
than one inference can reasonably be deduced from the facts, we cannot substitute our
own deductions for those of the trier of fact.” (In re G.C., supra, 48 Cal.App.5th at p.
265.)
B. There Was Sufficient Evidence To Support the Court’s Removal Order
Mother argues substantial evidence does not support the finding, by clear and
convincing evidence, that there would be a substantial danger to the children if returned
to her custody. She points to evidence showing that, by the time of the disposition
hearing, she had completed a parenting program, consistently attended visits, recognized
her relapse in drugs, took responsibility, and made meaningful, sustained changes over
several months. She claims she has “demonstrated sobriety, stability, and engagement in
services.”
However, the evidence shows mother had struggled with drug addiction since at
least 2012, meaning she had a history of substance abuse of over 13 years, and she had
not truly benefitted from previous substance abuse programs. During a July 2012
12
investigation, the maternal grandparents admitted mother was addicted to drugs and
reported that she had completed a treatment program. Mother also reported that she
completed a rehabilitation program. During an investigation in 2023, mother admitted to
having a history of using methamphetamine and Percocet. She said that she last used
methamphetamine in April 2016 and that she attended a substance abuse program at MFI
in 2022. The record also indicates that, during a June 2023 investigation, mother entered
into Inland Valley Recovery Services.
Despite previous services, mother was observed to have fresh sores on her face
and arms during the initial contact in the instant case on June 23, 2025. She tested
positive for methamphetamine that day and admitted she had just used that morning at
5:00 a.m. Mother admitted to relapsing in April 2025.
MFI reported that mother enrolled in outpatient services on June 26, 2025, was
participating in group sessions, individual counseling, and individual therapy services,
and had been testing negative. However, at the time of disposition, mother had not
completed the program. Moreover, upon completion of treatment, she would be referred
to aftercare and continued care at a lower level. The court stressed the importance of
relapse prevention, noting that the current case appeared to be a relapse case, since
mother had been provided services in the past, yet continued to use. Thus, while mother
had recently made promising strides at MFI, she was still in the early stages of recovery.
Given her long history of substance abuse, treatment, and relapse, four months of sobriety
did not mean she was still not at risk of relapsing. (See In re H.B. (2024) 106
Cal.App.5th 219, 242 [“Given father’s decades-long history of substance abuse, and the
13
fact he was in the early stages of recovery, the juvenile court could reasonably find it
highly probable that father’s four or so months of sobriety did not mean he was no longer
at risk of relapsing.”].)
In addition to mother’s substance abuse issues, the juvenile court noted her poor
parenting skills. The record indicates the children always ran around or played outside
unsupervised, and H.D. and R.D. were missing for up to an hour before the police found
them, placing them at risk of harm. Furthermore, H.D. was medically fragile and mother
neglected her needs. H.D. had juvenile arthritis, and mother failed to take her to required
infusions and medical appointments multiple times in June 2024, July 2024 and
September 2024 through June 2025.
Mother contends that, even if some risk remained, the juvenile court failed to
consider reasonable means to protect the children without removal. (§ 361, subd. (c)(1).)
She asserts that she expressly requested alternatives to removal, including returning the
children under a family maintenance plan. Specifically, mother suggested the court could
order random drug testing, require proof of participation in treatment, require verification
of H.D.’s medical appointments, and allow unannounced home visits by DPSS.
The fact that mother’s counsel specifically asked the court for these alternative
means of protecting the children demonstrates that the court did consider them. We note
that none of them would protect the children from mother’s failure to care for and
supervise the children on a daily basis. We further note that section 361, subdivision
(c)(1) specifies the court is to consider, as a reasonable means to protect a child, “[t]he
option of removing an offending parent … from the home” and “[a]llowing a
14
nonoffending parent … to retain physical custody as long as that parent … presents a
plan acceptable to the court demonstrating that they will be able to protect the child from
future harm.” (§ 361, subd. (c)(1)(A) & (B).) As respondent points out, there was no
nonoffending parent available here, as both parents had extensive substance abuse issues
and were currently in treatment.
We conclude that substantial evidence supports the court’s removal order.
Despite mother’s current participation in a substance abuse treatment program and her
completion of parenting classes, it was premature to return the children to her, given her
history.
DISPOSITION
The court’s order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
FIELDS
J.
We concur:
CODRINGTON
Acting P. J.
MENETREZ
J.
15
