Filed 9/28/26 In re K.H. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 K.H. et al., Persons Coming B349293
Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County
_____________________________ Super. Ct. No.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY 24CCJP02432A-B)
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Sally Espinoza, Judge. Affirmed.
Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
 Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Jacklyn K. Louie,
Assistant County Counsel, and Eden Gharapet Oxford, Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
******
The juvenile court declared the two young children of A.S.
(mother) to be dependents, and ordered the Los Angeles County
Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) to
provide mother with reunification services. At the six-month and
12-month review hearings, the court found continued jurisdiction
necessary because the conditions justifying jurisdiction persisted
and return of the children would be detrimental. Mother appeals
from the detriment finding made at the contested 12-month
review hearing. Substantial evidence supports that finding, and
we therefore affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
I. Facts
A. The family
Mother has two children—K.H. (born 2020) and P.H. (born
2022)—who are the subjects of this appeal. The father or fathers
of K.H. and P.H. are unknown and are not parties to this appeal.
During the pendency of these proceedings, mother gave birth to a
third child. That child and the child’s father are not parties to
this appeal.
B. Conduct giving rise to dependency jurisdiction
Mother moved to California in late 2023 after becoming
homeless in Arizona. She remained unhoused in California,
moving among shelters and at times staying at the Union Rescue
Mission in Los Angeles.
In January 2024, mother and K.H. stayed in a hospital
room where P.H. was recovering from ear surgery necessitated by

2
mastoiditis. The hospital room became filthy with trash and
clutter, and hospital staff had to change both of the children’s
diapers because mother was not doing so. Mother was also
neglecting to take care of K.H. and negotiated with a nurse that,
in exchange for mother picking up antibiotics for K.H.’s
perforated eardrum, the nurse would bathe and change K.H.
In early June 2024, while mother was on the telephone,
K.H., left alone in a bathtub, climbed onto the toilet and sink to
reach a bar of soap and fell between the fixtures. Mother did not
seek medical attention. On another occasion, building security
intervened to stop P.H. from being struck by a car when he was
found outside alone.
Soon thereafter, a Department social worker visited mother
and observed that K.H. had visible scars 2-3 inches long on both
sides of her back that appeared to be several days old. K.H.
reported she fell from a bathroom counter and hit her back on a
mop bucket; mother confirmed this account. Mother explained
that P.H. had gotten outside because K.H. opened the door. She
acknowledged she “struggle[ed] to raise her children” asking
“[w]hat am I supposed to do when they don’t listen” and stated
that K.H. has a “behavior problem” and “does whatever she
wants.”1 Later, while the social worker was present, P.H. again
wandered toward the street from a parking lot and had to be
stopped and returned to mother by the social worker.
The social worker described mother’s room as having a
“foul odor” and being infested with flies and other insects. Both
children appeared neglected in terms of their hygiene, in

1 In early June K.H. was seen outside the home alone at
approximately 10:00 p.m., and in late June, K.H. scratched P.H.
on the face, causing two lacerations.

3
particular K.H. who had hardened feces on her leg and a rash on
her thighs and genital area.
In late June 2024, mother left the children with her
boyfriend while she went to a laundry room. When she returned
she saw blue detergent on P.H.’s face and discovered he had
ingested a laundry detergent pod. When asked about this
incident, mother deflected stating: “When you ask your boyfriend
to watch your children I would think they could do that” and
added that she gave P.H. some milk and reported he was
“watching the phone” and was “fine.”
In July 2024, the children appeared at medical
appointments unkempt, in dirty diapers, and complaining of
hunger. Although physicians recommended evaluation of P.H.
for developmental concerns, mother declined to pursue
treatment.
On August 1, 2024, the children were detained from mother
and placed with a caregiver. The caregiver reported both
children had head lice; P.H. had scratch marks on his cheek; and
K.H. had multiple marks on her body and a diaper rash. P.H.
was nonverbal, could not hear, and placed objects such as rocks
in his mouth, requiring constant supervision. K.H., nearly four
years old, remained in diapers, was only partially toilet trained,
and had frequent tantrums.
II. Procedural Background
A. Detention and initial petition
On August 5, 2024, the Department filed a petition asking
the juvenile court to exert dependency jurisdiction over K.H. and
P.H. alleging mother’s inability “to provide appropriate parental
care and supervision of the children.” The petition noted K.H.’s
unsanitary condition when she had hardened feces on her body

4
and also referenced incidents when the children were left
unsupervised, K.H. was found outside alone, P.H. was almost
struck by a vehicle, and P.H. ingested a laundry detergent pod.
These incidents of mother’s deficient parenting “endanger[ed] the
children’s physical health and safety and place[d] [them] at
[substantial] risk of serious physical harm, damage, and danger,”
thereby warranting the exercise of dependency jurisdiction under
subdivision (b) of Welfare and Institutions Code section 300.2
On September 18, 2024, the Department filed a First
Amended Petition adding a further allegation under section 300,
subdivision (b) that mother failed to provide timely and
appropriate medical care for P.H. including delaying treatment
for an ear infection that progressed to mastoiditis requiring
surgery, and failed to provide appropriate follow-up care.3
At the jurisdiction/disposition hearing on November 21,
2024, mother waived her right to a trial, and the juvenile court
sustained the amended petition. The court found by clear and
convincing evidence, that returning the children to mother would
create a “substantial risk of detriment” to the children’s safety,
and ordered reunification services. The case plan included
assistance with transportation and housing, a psychiatric
evaluation with compliance with any prescribed medication,

2 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.

3 Mother’s visitation during this period was sporadic. In
October 2024, she left her housing in Los Angeles and relocated
to Fresno County with a new boyfriend, where they sought
housing and she requested a transfer of her case. The following
month, mother met another “guy friend” and returned to Los
Angeles with him.

5
parenting classes tailored to special-needs children, and
monitored visitation at least three times per week for three
hours.
B. Six-month review hearing
1. Case plan progress
From November 2024 to May 2025, the children resided
with the same caregiver and received all appropriate services.
Mother completed a parenting program and was on a waitlist for
therapy. She was pregnant with her third child and described
the pregnancy as high risk, limiting her ability to work. Mother
expressed stress about caring for three young children and
uncertainty about how she would manage upon reunification.
She also reported instability in her living situation and
relationship with the father of her unborn child and suggested
placement with the maternal grandmother in Sacramento.
During visits with the children, mother tended to focus on
P.H. and required redirection to attend to K.H., who sometimes
misbehaved to obtain attention and did not consistently follow
directions, leading to mother’s frustration. Mother remained
unhoused, staying in motels and receiving financial assistance
from the father of her unborn child, though she stated they were
not in a romantic relationship.
2. Review hearing
At the six-month status review hearing on June 4, 2025,
the juvenile court found mother in substantial compliance with
the case plan and noted “significant progress” but expressed
concern regarding the unequal attention given to her children
during her visitation and the frustration she encounters when
attempting to supervise them. The court found the conditions
justifying jurisdiction continued to exist and that return of the

6
children would be detrimental. The court continued reunification
services for an additional six months.4
C. 12-month review hearing
1. Case plan progress
During the next review period, P.H. was diagnosed with
autism and an intellectual disability. He remained nonverbal
and received occupational therapy. P.H. developed an eating
disorder that caused him to eat non-edible food items such as dirt
or paint and required him to be consistently supervised.
Mother reported she was living with a family friend “Ms.
Bella” but declined to provide identifying information because the
individual did not wish to interact with the Department. Mother
also identified “Adrian” as the father of her third child and her
primary support who planned to be in her and her children’s
lives, but refused to provide further information due to his
criminal history and prior dependency involvement. The
Department explained that the information was necessary to
ensure child safety and conduct background checks.
Mother’s visits with the children were generally
appropriate, but she continued to have difficulty redirecting the
children when they misbehaved. During an August 9, 2025 visit,
P.H. accessed mother’s purse, retrieved hand sanitizer, and
attempted to ingest it; he also fell and sustained a bruise. On
August 13, 2025, a visit at the apartment where mother was
residing ended early after mother became frustrated, blaming the
social worker for not having diapers. The social worker explained
it was important for a parent to demonstrate the ability to
provide for the children’s necessities. On August 18, 2025, P.H.
accessed a bottle of DayQuil from the table, opened it, and spilled

4 Mother did not appeal this finding.

7
it on himself. Mother reported that the children do not listen to
her and attributed her frustration in part to her pregnancy.
2. Review hearing
At the 12-month status review hearing on September 24,
2025, the juvenile court again found mother had made
substantial progress but determined that returning the children
to her custody would be detrimental. The court cited the safety
incidents during unmonitored visitation, including P.H.’s access
to DayQuil and hand sanitizer, as well as mother’s ongoing
inability to adequately supervise. The court also expressed
concern that individuals residing with or supporting mother—Ms.
Bella and Adrian—had not been assessed due to mother’s refusal
to provide information. The court continued reunification
services for an additional six months.
D. Appeal
Mother timely filed this appeal.
DISCUSSION
Mother contends the juvenile court erred in finding that
returning K.H. and P.H. to her custody at the 12-month review
hearing would create a substantial risk of detriment. She argues
the record instead demonstrates meaningful progress, consistent
visitation, and developing parenting skills sufficient to permit the
return of the children.
At the 12-month review hearing, the juvenile court must
return a dependent child to parental custody unless it finds, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that return would create a
“substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or
physical or emotional well-being of the child.” (§ 366.21, subd.
(f)(1).) The social services agency bears the burden of
establishing detriment. (Ibid.; Cynthia D. v. Superior Court

8
(1993) 5 Cal.4th 242, 249.)
In making its determination, the court considers the
parent’s participation in services and the extent to which the
parent has alleviated the conditions leading to removal.
(§ 366.21, subd. (f)(1)(C); In re Dustin R. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th
1131, 1141–1142.) We review the juvenile court’s finding of
detriment for substantial evidence, asking only whether the
finding is supported by evidence that is ‘“reasonable, credible[,]
and of solid value . . . .’ [Citation.]” (In re E.D. (2013) 217
Cal.App.4th 960, 966.) We construe the record in the light most
favorable to the court’s finding and do not consider whether there
is evidence from which the court could have drawn a different
conclusion. (In re A.C. (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 38, 43; In re
M.R. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 101, 108.)
Substantial evidence supported the juvenile court’s
determination that returning the children to mother’s custody at
the time of the 12-month hearing would pose a substantial risk of
detriment.
The primary basis for jurisdiction—mother’s inability to
adequately supervise very young children—remained unresolved.
By the 12-month hearing, P.H. had significant special needs,
including autism, intellectual disability, and an eating disorder
requiring constant supervision. Yet recent unmonitored visits
reflected continuing lapses. P.H. accessed hand sanitizer from
mother’s purse and attempted to ingest it, and on a separate
occasion accessed a bottle of DayQuil left within reach. Although
mother minimized these incidents, the court could reasonably
view them as evidence that she had not developed the ability to
anticipate and prevent foreseeable risks—particularly given
P.H.’s known behaviors. These incidents echoed the conduct that

9
led to jurisdiction, including P.H.’s prior ingestion of a laundry
detergent pod and repeated instances of the children wandering
unsupervised. The recurrence of similar safety concerns
supported the finding that the underlying problem—insufficient
supervision—had not been adequately addressed.
The record also shows mother continued to struggle
managing both children. She had difficulty dividing her
attention, became frustrated during visits, and required
prompting to address K.H.’s behavior. Although she completed a
parenting program, the court could reasonably conclude she had
not yet translated those skills into consistent, safe parenting
under real-world conditions. As courts have repeatedly
recognized, “simply complying with the reunification plan . . . is
not determinative”; the question is whether the parent has
gained the capacity to safely parent. (In re Dustin R., supra, 54
Cal.App.4th at p. 1143.)
The juvenile court also properly considered mother’s living
situation. Mother refused to provide information necessary for
the Department to assess individuals in her household, including
“Ms. Bella” and “Adrian”—an individual mother identified as her
primary support despite his criminal and dependency history.
The court could reasonably view the presence of unassessed
adults—and mother’s resistance to basic safety vetting—as an
ongoing risk factor. (In re John V. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1201,
1212.)
The court was also entitled to consider mother’s overall
circumstances, including her pregnancy and the difficulty she
had keeping up with the children. Mother acknowledged she was
“not as quick as she used to be” and had previously expressed
uncertainty about her ability to care for three young children.

10
While these factors alone would not justify a detriment finding,
they were relevant in assessing her present ability to safely
supervise two very young children with significant needs.
Mother challenges the trial court’s ruling with three
arguments. First, she emphasizes her consistent visitation,
completion of a parenting program, and the bond she shares with
her children. The juvenile court expressly acknowledged this
progress and found it “substantial.” But progress, even
significant progress, does not mandate a return of the children
where substantial evidence supports a finding of ongoing risk.
Second, mother claims her children were never at risk of
harm or needed medical intervention during the visitation
incidents. To the extent mother relies on counsel’s
characterization of her participation in services, the juvenile
court was entitled to rely on the documentary and testimonial
evidence before it. The record speaks for itself, and the absence
of serious injury does not compel a different result. The statutory
standard focuses on risk of detriment, not actual harm.
(§ 366.21, subd. (f)(1).) The court could reasonably conclude that
repeated access to potentially harmful substances by a child
known to ingest nonedible items posed a substantial risk, even if
harm was averted on those occasions.
Third and lastly, mother argues there was no evidence that
either “Ms. Bella” or “Adrian” posed a risk to the children because
the Department lacked information about them. We are not
persuaded by a parent’s reliance on the absence of evidence when
that absence is the product of the parent’s own refusal to provide
information or permit assessment. Accepting mother’s position
would effectively allow a parent to insulate potentially unsafe
individuals from scrutiny—and thereby from the court’s

11
consideration—simply by withholding identifying information.
The dependency scheme does not countenance such a result.
The court’s concern about mother’s acquaintances was not
theoretical. Mother acknowledged that Adrian had a felony
conviction and prior dependency history, yet declined to provide
information necessary for the Department to evaluate any risk.
She likewise failed to facilitate any assessment of “Ms. Bella,”
who refused contact with the Department. Under these
circumstances, the juvenile court could reasonably view the
presence of unassessed adults in mother’s household—and
mother’s resistance to basic vetting—as a continuing risk factor.
The absence of evidence in this context does not establish safety;
it reflects an inability to ensure it.

12
 DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

KUMAR, J.*
We concur:

MOOR, Acting P. J.

KIM (D.), J.

* Retired Judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI,
section 6 of the California Constitution.

13