Filed 8/11/26 In re R.S. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 R.S. et al., Persons Coming Under
the Juvenile Court Law.
E087760
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, (Super.Ct.Nos. J305522, J305523
& J305524)
Plaintiff and Respondent,
OPINION
v.
J.C.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Cara D. Hutson,
Judge. Affirmed.
Suzanne Davidson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Laura Feingold, County Counsel and David R. Guardado, Deputy County Counsel
for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
INTRODUCTION
J.C. (mother) challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the juvenile
court’s dispositional order removing her children, A.S., L.S., and R.S. (the children),
from her care under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 361, subdivision (c)(1). We
affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On August 13, 2025, San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS)
filed section 300 petitions on behalf of the children. At that time, R.S. was seven years
old, L.S. was 10 years old, and A.S. was 12 years old. The petitions alleged they came
within section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect) and (g) (no provision for support).
Specifically, the petitions alleged that mother and D.S. (father)2 had substance abuse
problems, mother and father (the parents) failed to provide adequate and appropriate
provisions, supervision, and support, the parents had unstable and unsafe lifestyles, and
the children were left without provisions or support when the parents were arrested on
August 11, 2025.
The social worker filed a detention report recommending the court detain the
children. The report stated that, on August 11, 2025, CFS received a referral indicating
that the parents both had outstanding felony warrants and were arrested and taken into
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. Thus, this opinion will focus on mother.
2
custody, and there were no adults available to care for the children. Mother had a warrant
for grand theft auto, and both parents were involved in an assault incident that day.
The court held a detention hearing and detained the children in foster care and
ordered predisposition services for the parents.
Section 388 Petitions and Amended Section 300 Petition
On August 29, 2025, mother and father each filed a section 388 petition, in propria
persona, asking the court to return the children to them, since they were now out of
custody. The court summarily denied the petitions. On September 5, 2025, father filed a
second section 388 petition, again asking for return of the children, and the court
summarily denied it.
On September 8, 2025, CFS filed a first amended section 300 petition on behalf of
R.S., alleging a new father, E.J.3, and adding allegations concerning him.
Jurisdiction/Disposition
On September 8, 2025, the social worker filed a jurisdiction/disposition report,
recommending that the court find the allegations pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b)
true, but the allegations pursuant to subdivision (g) not true. The social worker further
recommended the court find father to be the presumed father of the children, find E.J. to
be the presumed father of R.S., and order reunification services for all three parents.
The social worker reported that mother and father each had extensive criminal
histories of being arrested and charged with various crimes, with some leading to
3 E.J. is not a party to this appeal.
3
convictions. Father’s offenses included drug possession, driving under the influence
(DUI), battery, and possession of a stolen vehicle. Mother’s offenses included drug
possession, DUI, burglary, receiving stolen property, and assault with a deadly weapon.
The social worker interviewed A.S., who said he lived with his parents, siblings,
and their animals in three recreational vehicle trailers (RVs). A.S. said he and his
siblings showered once every three days, and to obtain water, he had to walk to get water
in jug containers from his friend’s house or he got water from the RV park, and he boiled
it on a propane stove in order to shower.
The social worker also interviewed R.S., who said he had two fathers. He lived
with father and sometimes visited E.J. R.S. said his family lived in three campers. He
said they did not have a shower because they lived out in the desert, and they had to drive
to take a shower.
The social worker interviewed L.S., who said her family lived in three campers
and a shed. The parents slept in the shed, she and her brothers slept in one camper, and
they used the small camper for storage and the big camper for food. L.S. reported that
mother sometimes used “drugs” that were in a bottle, and that when her mother drank
what was in the bottle, she would act different, like “‘all angrily [sic]’” and “‘kinda
crazy.’”
On August 28, 2025, the social worker spoke with E.J.’s mother (the paternal
grandmother), who said that, at the beginning of August, mother drove to her house
drunk with the two older children in the car. The paternal grandmother reported that R.S.
4
told her there was no running water, electricity, or food at the parents’ home. She also
reported that mother admitted a couple times she had no food.
The social worker stated that mother was uncooperative, as she had not made
herself available for an interview or visit. However, on August 29, 2025, she finally
spoke with mother. Mother denied the allegations in the petitions and said the only
reason the children were removed was because she was incarcerated, but now that she
was out of custody, they should return home. Mother said she lived with father, but they
were not married. She was unemployed, and when asked what she did for income, she
said, “I usually recycle.” Father did “odd jobs here and there.” Mother said father was
the father of A.S. and L.S., and E.J. was the father of R.S. Mother asked how long the
interview was going to be and when the social worker estimated an hour and a half to two
hours, mother said she wanted to be done with the background portion of the interview
and hear the allegations, but she did not want to comment on them.
The social worker was concerned with mother’s substance abuse and criminal
activity. She was also concerned that mother was minimizing the reason for CFS’s
involvement. The social worker said mother would be referred to parenting education,
individual counseling, anger management, random drug testing, and an outpatient drug
treatment program. She opined that it would be detrimental to place the children with
mother and stated it was necessary to remove physical custody of them from her.
The court held a hearing on September 9, 2025, and mother, father, and E.J. were
present with counsel. The court relieved appointed counsel for mother and appointed
new counsel. Mother’s new counsel said she spoke with mother and was not sure they
5
would be able to work together effectively, so counsel declared a conflict and deferred to
the court to “make a final decision.” The court informed mother’s new counsel that she
needed a good reason to declare a conflict, other than her client would not talk to her, and
the court would still proceed since it was ultimately looking toward the children’s best
interest. The court ordered predisposition services for the parents and set the matter for
mediation and a further hearing. The court also ordered the parents to submit to a drug
test.
On October 10, 2025, the court indicated it was in receipt of mother’s counsel’s
motion to be relieved as counsel of record due to a “complete communication
breakdown” between her and mother. The court granted the request and appointed
another new counsel.
On November 12, 2025, the social worker filed an information memorandum to
inform the court that the parents had provided A.S. and L.S. with cell phones and R.S.
with a tablet, and they were communicating with the children outside the court’s order.
Further, the parents failed to show up for visits, and mother went to the CFS office and
stated she would not take part in any services. The parents also did not show up for their
scheduled drug tests. Additionally, mother wrote a letter to the social worker demanding
the immediate return of the children to her.
The court held a further hearing on November 12, 2025. County counsel informed
the court that the parents repeatedly violated court orders by discussing the case on social
media and calling the children on their devices. County counsel asked the court to take
6
away the children’s phones and tablet, but the court declined to do so and continued the
hearing.
The social worker filed another information memorandum on December 15, 2025,
and informed the court that the parents had not signed the consent form for services, had
not engaged in any services, and had not drug tested for CFS. On November 19, 2025,
the social worker attempted to call mother to inquire of any Indian ancestry, but mother
did not answer and failed to return the call. The social worker recommended the court
declare the children dependents, remove them from the parents, and order reunification
services. The social worker specifically recommended the court find that clear and
convincing evidence showed the children should be removed from the parents’ custody
because there was a substantial danger to the children’s health, safety, and well-being,
and there were no reasonable means by which to protect them without removing them
from the parents’ custody.
The court held a hearing on December 18, 2025. Mother’s counsel declared a
conflict and asked to be relieved. The court relieved her and appointed another counsel
and continued the hearing.
On January 12, 2026, the social worker filed another information memorandum
and informed the court that the parents continued to refuse services and drug testing.
On January 21, 2026, the social worker filed an information memorandum and
reported that she again called mother to ask about any Native American ancestry, and
mother asked why CFS needed to know and then refused to answer any questions without
her attorney. The parents continued to miss their drug tests.
7
On January 23, 2026, the social worker filed a second amended petition on behalf
of R.S., and first amended petitions on behalf of the other two children, adding
allegations that mother and father had untreated mental health issues.
The court held a hearing on January 27, 2026 and dismissed the amended
petitions, pursuant to county counsel’s motion. Then, father testified, but mother did not.
County counsel moved to dismiss the allegations under section 300, subdivision (g), and
the court granted the motion. The court found true the allegations under section 300,
subdivision (b). As to disposition, mother asked for return of the children that day,
arguing there was no clear and convincing evidence of danger to them. County counsel
disagreed, pointing out that CFS had attempted several times to engage the parents, but
they had been “incredibly uncooperative” and exhibited “oppositional defiance.”
The court noted that it had read the reports and then found father to be the
presumed father of L.S. and A.S. and E.J. to be the presumed father of R.S. The court
stated there was clear and convincing evidence the children should be removed from the
parents’ and E.J.’s custody since there was a substantial danger to their physical health,
safety, and emotional well-being. The court declared the children dependents and
ordered reunification services for the parents and E.J. It also incorporated all findings
and orders not read into the record.
DISCUSSION
Mother contends the juvenile court’s removal order is unsupported by substantial
evidence, noting the court did not state the facts on which it based its decision. She also
argues there were reasonable means to protect the children short of removal from her
8
home, such as ordering in-home therapeutic services and conjoint therapy for her and the
children, and unannounced in-home visits. Mother further contends that CFS made no
reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the children’s removal. 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
9
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, the family home had running water, the children reported they always had food
to eat and denied any abuse, and they felt safe with her. In addition, she and father were
no longer in custody, and there was no evidence they were charged for any crimes with
regard to the most recent incident.
The undisputed evidence showed the family lived in three RVs in the desert, and
the children slept in one of them by themselves. The children only bathed once every
three days and lacked access to basic necessities, such as food, electricity, and readily
10
available water. Mother was unemployed and had no apparent consistent income.
Further, the evidence indicates she would get drunk in front of the children. Mother also
drove drunk with the children in the car. On one occasion, R.S. swallowed Drain-O
while in mother’s care, as she was reportedly asleep. Moreover, mother felt the only
reason the children were removed was because she was incarcerated, but now that she
was out of custody, the children should return home. Thus, mother clearly saw no need
to implement any changes, as evidenced by her complete refusal to participate in
services.
For these reasons, we conclude substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s
finding by clear and convincing evidence that there would be a substantial danger to the
children if returned to mother’s care.
Mother claims there were reasonable means to protect the children short of
removal from her home, such as ordering in-home therapeutic services and conjoint
therapy for her and the children, and unannounced in-home visits. However, there were
no services or therapy that could have ensured the children’s safety and well-being, given
mother’s flat refusal to engage in any services offered to her, failure to comply with court
orders, and failure to cooperate with CFS in any way.
Mother further contends that CFS made no reasonable efforts to prevent or
eliminate the need for the children’s removal. She asserts that CFS did not follow up
with her regarding what options she had to address the issues in the case, such as her
failure to provide adequate provisions to care for the children. However, mother initially
did not even make herself available for an interview with CFS. When she did finally talk
11
to the social worker, she refused to even discuss the allegations against her. The record
indicates the social worker referred mother to a parenting program, individual counseling,
anger management, random drug testing, and an outpatient drug treatment program.
Mother refused to participate in any services or submit to drug tests. Instead, she
minimized the reasons for CFS’s involvement.
We acknowledge mother’s contention that the court did not state the facts on
which it based its decision to remove the children from her custody. The juvenile court is
required to “state the facts on which the decision to remove the minor is based” (§ 361,
subd. (e)), and the court does not appear to have done so. However, even if the court
erred in failing to state its factual findings, any error was harmless. Given the evidence
discussed above, including the deficient living conditions of mother’s home, her failure to
discuss the allegations, her lack of compliance with court orders, her lack of cooperation
with CFS, and her refusal to engage in any services, it is not reasonably probable the
court’s findings would have been in favor of her continued custody had it expressly made
findings under section 361, subdivision (e). (In re L.O. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 227, 247
[“‘[C]ases involving a court’s obligation to make findings regarding a minor’s change of
custody or commitment have held the failure to do so will be deemed harmless where “it
is not reasonably probable such finding, if made, would have been in favor of continued
parental custody”’”].)
In sum, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the court’s findings that
the children would be at substantial risk of harm if returned home and there were no
reasonable means by which they could be protected without removal.
12
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
FIELDS
J.
We concur:
McKINSTER
Acting P. J.
MENETREZ
J.
13
