In re D.M. CA2/2

Filed 4/30/15 In re D.M. CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

In re D.M., a Person Coming Under the B257229 Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK45086)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.T.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Stephen Marpet, Court Commissioner. Reversed. Mark J. Saladino, County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, and Jessica S. Mitchell, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Maureen L. Keaney, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Minor. ******

The juvenile court asserted jurisdiction over D.M. based on allegations that both her father and mother were unfit. Mother challenges (1) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding as to her fitness, and (2) the court’s subsequent dispositional order that mother participate in counseling and drug testing as part of a reunification plan. We conclude that there was insufficient evidence to support the jurisdictional finding as to mother and that the terms of the court’s dispositional order as to mother lack the requisite nexus to the conditions that led to the assertion of jurisdiction over D.M. We accordingly reverse. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2013, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) filed a petition seeking dependency jurisdiction over D.M. (born 2007), who was then in the custody of her father, R.M. (father). The petition, once amended, alleged two bases for jurisdiction: (1) that father had engaged in violent altercations with others in front of D.M., had a history of illicit drug use and currently abused marijuana, and was mentally and emotionally unstable, all of which placed D.M. at risk of serious physical harm within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, 1 subdivisions (a) and (b) ; and (2) that M.T. (mother) had a history of drug abuse and did not reunify with two of her other children in 2002, which rendered her incapable of adequately protecting D.M. and thus placed D.M. at risk of serious physical harm within the meaning of section 300, subdivision (b). The juvenile court sustained both allegations, but modified the allegation as to mother. In light of evidence that mother had been attending Narcotics Anonymous and Alcoholic Anonymous classes as well as participating in a substance abuse program in Tijuana, Mexico, had tested “clean” on all of the drug tests administered during the pendency of D.M.’s petition, and had been capably caring for her then-two-and-a-half- year old son since his birth without incident, the court struck the portion of the petition