In re L.J. CA1/5
Filed 4/29/25 In re L.J. CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
In re L.J. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, A171554
Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Francisco County v. Super. Ct. Nos. JD24-3071 & JD24-3072) M.J., Defendant and Appellant.
In these dependency actions, M.J. (Mother) appeals the juvenile court’s orders assuming jurisdiction over her two children, L.J. and M.B. (collectively, Minors), under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300.1 Mother does not challenge the juvenile court’s jurisdiction, but argues solely that findings regarding alcohol use and domestic violence are not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.
1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code.
1
BACKGROUND In April 2024, the San Francisco Human Services Agency (Agency) filed section 300 petitions seeking to detain then-11-month-old L.J. and newborn M.B. from Mother and Minors’ respective fathers. As relevant here, the petitions alleged Mother had substance abuse issues impeding her ability to care for Minors.2 Amended petitions later added an allegation that Minors were also at risk due to a history of domestic violence between Mother and M.B.’s father (Father). According to the Agency’s detention report, Minors both tested positive for methamphetamine at birth. Mother had been investigated by a different county after L.J.’s birth; the county closed that referral but noted Mother “ ‘has a history of drug use’ ” and “ ‘continues to minimize it.’ ” Nurses observed that Mother was not attentive to M.B. while in the hospital after his birth. Mother told the Agency she used methamphetamine when she was homeless in 2022, but stopped after she got housing. Mother also said she drank excessively before her pregnancy with L.J. but stopped because she did not like the way it made her feel. Mother denied any current drug use, said her last use was in 2022, and said she had no idea how either Minor tested positive for methamphetamine. The Agency allowed M.B. to be discharged to Mother and Father on the condition that they stay with the maternal grandmother, who agreed to supervise them at all times. The following day, the Agency learned that Mother and Father brought M.B. in for a pediatric checkup without the maternal grandmother. At the checkup, the parents said M.B. had turned purple on two occasions, but were not able to answer follow-up questions.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)