Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 20, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Angela H. v. Superior Court CA2/7

California Court of Appeal

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: B349291

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (7)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (56.1K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

Filed 3/20/26 Angela H. v. Superior Court CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

ANGELA H., B349291

Petitioner, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No.
v. 23LJJP00418)

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
LOS ANGELES COUNTY,

Respondent;

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY
SERVICES,

Real Party in Interest.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for extraordinary
writ. Jennifer W. Baronoff, Juvenile Court Referee. Petition
granted.
Law Office of Emily Berger and Michael Hefty for
Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Jessica Buckelew, Deputy County
Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.

---

In December 2023 Ace H. was detained from his mother,
Angela H. (Mother), and father, Benjamin R. (Father), after Ace
and Mother tested positive for marijuana at the time of Ace’s
birth. The juvenile court sustained a petition under Welfare and
Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1),1 and removed
Ace from his parents’ care. For the first 11 months after Ace’s
removal, Mother failed to enroll in services as required by her
case plan and repeatedly tested positive for marijuana. In
November 2024 Mother began testing negative for all substances,
and by early 2025 she was enrolled in all court-ordered programs.
However, after approximately eight months of making
substantial progress on her case plan, Mother experienced a
setback in the summer of 2025 when she was dropped by her
therapist and her domestic violence program. Mother also
missed two drug tests during this time.
By the time of the 18-month review hearing (§ 366.22) in
September 2025, Mother had re-enrolled in counseling and
domestic violence classes and continued to test negative.
Nevertheless, the juvenile court terminated Mother’s

1 Further statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code.

2
reunification services, finding a substantial risk of detriment to
Ace’s safety if he were returned to Mother’s care. The court set a
hearing pursuant to section 366.26 to terminate Mother’s
parental rights and consider a plan for adoption.
Mother seeks extraordinary writ relief, arguing substantial
evidence does not support the juvenile court’s finding that
returning Ace to her custody would create a substantial risk of
detriment to his safety. We agree and grant the petition.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The Dependency Petition and Ace’s Removal from Mother
and Father
In November 2023 the Los Angeles County Department of
Children and Family Services (Department) received a referral
for newborn Ace alleging general neglect after Mother tested
positive for marijuana at Ace’s birth. Ace’s drug test also came
back positive for marijuana. Mother told a Department social
worker that she had started using drugs when she was 13 years
old (approximately seven years earlier) and was hospitalized on a
psychiatric hold around that time with diagnoses of major
depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, bipolar
depression, and anxiety. Mother said she had last used
marijuana in early October 2023. She used marijuana
“randomly” when she had difficulty sleeping or eating, but she
had used marijuana only two or three times toward the end of her
pregnancy. She was not currently using marijuana because she
was breastfeeding. However, she intended to use marijuana
again when she stopped breastfeeding in a few months.

3
During its investigation, the Department learned of a
domestic violence incident between Mother and Father that
occurred in October 2022. Mother had taken Xanax and “blacked
out.” Father tried to wake Mother, and she became agitated and
kicked Father in the head. The paternal grandmother entered
the room to see what was happening, and Mother slapped her.
Mother was arrested and charged with misdemeanor spousal
battery (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (e)(1)) and misdemeanor battery
(id., § 242). The juvenile court ordered Mother into a diversion
program as a part of which she participated in individual
therapy, meetings with a “life specialist,” and parenting classes.
She was also required to complete a 52-week domestic violence
program and drug treatment program. The criminal court
entered a protective order directing Mother to stay away from
Father and paternal grandmother. Mother told the Department
social worker that she and Father had attempted to have the
stay-away order terminated or modified, but they were told it
could not be changed until Mother completed her court-ordered
services. Mother understood that living with Father was in
violation of the stay-away order, and she intended to move out in
January 2024.
On December 15, 2023 the juvenile court granted a removal
order to detain Ace from his parents, and on December 19 the
Department filed a petition on behalf of Ace pursuant to
section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b)(1). The petition alleged
Mother and Father had a history of violent altercations, including
the October 2022 incident when Mother kicked Father in the
head. The petition also alleged Mother had a “history of
substance abuse[,] including cocaine, methamphetamine,
psychedelic drugs and Xanax” and was “a current abuser of

4
marijuana,” which rendered Mother incapable of providing
regular care and supervision for Ace. A separate allegation
stated Ace’s positive toxicology screen at birth showed Mother
had placed Ace at risk of serious physical harm. The petition also
alleged Father had a history of substance abuse, including
fentanyl, and was a current abuser of marijuana, and Mother
knew of Father’s substance abuse and failed to protect Ace.
At the March 4, 2024 jurisdiction and disposition hearing,
the juvenile court dismissed the allegation pursuant to
section 300, subdivision (a), and sustained the remaining
allegations pursuant to subdivision (b)(1) regarding Mother and
Father’s drug use, Ace’s positive toxicology result, and the
parents’ history of violent altercations. Ace was removed from
his parents’ custody and placed in a foster home. The court
ordered family reunification services and required Mother to
participate in anger management classes, parenting classes, and
individual counseling and to submit to weekly random and on-
demand drug and alcohol testing. The court ordered monitored
visitation for Mother three times per week for three hours each
visit, with the Department having discretion to liberalize
visitation.

B. The Reunification Period
During the initial six-month reunification period, Mother
struggled to comply with her case plan. Between March 1 and
August 5, 2024 she tested positive for marijuana seven times and
failed to show for the remaining 16 tests. As of mid-August 2024
Mother had enrolled in parenting classes but had not yet started
attending. She had not enrolled in anger management classes.
While not ordered by her case plan, in 2024 Mother attended

5
seven Narcotics Anonymous meetings and one Alcoholics
Anonymous meeting. Mother regularly attended weekly
individual counseling sessions during 2024 except for a period of
five missed sessions in July. Mother was scheduled for monitored
visits with Ace twice a week for two hours each visit, but she
cancelled or failed to show up for 23 visits between March and
August 2024. During the visits she attended, Mother was
observed to be “extremely attentive” and “very affectionate” with
Ace. No concerning behaviors were observed during the visits.
At the six-month review hearing on September 4, 2024, the
juvenile court found Mother’s progress on her case plan was
unsubstantial and ordered continuation of her reunification
services.2
In the first few weeks after the review hearing, Mother
continued to test positive for marijuana. Between September 4
and November 18, 2024 Mother missed two tests and tested
positive 11 times. Her highest level of marijuana was on
October 15 (848 ng/mL), after which the level declined until she
tested negative on November 26. During the period from
November 26, 2024 to March 25, 2025 Mother tested negative
17 times and missed two tests.
Mother’s elevated levels of marijuana coincided with an
incident during an October 10, 2024 visit in which Mother had
difficulty changing Ace’s diaper and appeared drowsy. Mother
agreed to an on-demand drug test, which was positive for
marijuana. Other than the October 10 incident, the Department
never observed concerning behavior during Mother’s visits.

2 Father’s reunification services were terminated at the six-
month review hearing.

6
Mother attended visits consistently and made “extremely strong
efforts . . . to further strengthen the bond between her and her
child.”
By April 2025 Mother had completed 22 parenting classes
and seven anger management classes. The provider of the anger
management classes reported Mother “actively participates in
discussions showing a willingness to understand the material
and the implications of her behavior.” Mother’s individual
therapist reported Mother was “attending sessions regularly and
making significant progress.” The therapist further noted in
March 2025 that Mother had “several environmental stressors”
and “she has implemented her new skills and regulated and
stabilized herself where before [that] might not have been
attainable.”
At the 12-month review hearing on April 9, 2025, the
juvenile court found Mother’s progress on her case plan was
substantial and ordered continuation of reunification services.
The court also liberalized Mother’s visitation to be unmonitored
but in the Department’s offices.
In April 2025 a Department social worker conducted an
assessment of Mother’s home, where Mother lived with a
roommate and the roommate’s children. The social worker did
not observe any drug paraphernalia or other hazardous items.
Mother moved to her own home in July 2025, and the social
worker “congratulated mother on this milestone she
accomplished.”
Sometime after Mother ended her relationship with Father
in February 2025, Mother began a relationship with a man who
was incarcerated “due to an altercation that . . . resulted in him
stabbing another male, leading to the man’s death.” The

7
Department social worker spoke to the boyfriend on the
telephone, and he indicated he would be eligible for parole in
September 2026. The social worker expressed concern over the
relationship, and in July 2025 Mother informed the social worker
that she had ended the relationship because “she understands
the detriments that this relationship has caused for her in
relation to meeting her goal of reunification.”
In the first three months following the 12-month review
hearing, Mother continued to comply with her case plan. By
June 2025 she had completed 29 parenting classes. On June 2
Mother’s anger management provider reported Mother had
completed 17 batterer’s intervention classes and “has
demonstrated a commendable level of accountability throughout
her engagement in group sessions. She actively participates in
all group discussions and contributes meaningful insights,
showcasing her commitment to personal growth and the
objectives of the anger management program.” However, Mother
was released from the program effective August 1 due to “non-
attendance and lack of communication.” Mother told the
Department that she was released because she “did not get along
with the group leader.” Mother was able to re-enroll in the
program on September 15.
On July 8, 2025 Mother’s therapist reported that Mother
was attending sessions regularly and was making significant
progress toward her treatment goals. Despite these statements,
on August 12 the therapist sent a letter to the social worker
stating Mother was no longer her client. The therapist explained
Mother “had several attempts with attendance contracts and
warning letters over the year due to lack of attendance and will

8
kind of drop off and not contact me for weeks at a time.” Mother
found a new therapist and resumed sessions on September 17.
Mother continued to test negative for illicit substances
during this review period. She had 18 negative tests between
April 2 and September 3, 2025, but she missed tests on August 1
and August 28. Mother explained she failed to test on August 1
because Ace had been placed with new caregivers and she was
“overwhelmed and checked out of things.” Regarding the
August 28 missed test, Mother stated she was sick and “out of it.”
Throughout this review period (from April to
September 2025), Mother had unmonitored visits with Ace three
times per week for three hours each visit. The visits were
initially held in the Department’s offices but were liberalized to
unmonitored visits in the community as of July 28, 2025. The
Department continued to report Mother was “extremely
attentive” during visits and there were no concerns regarding her
interactions with Ace. In July the Department reported that
Mother “demonstrated that she shares an extremely strong
emotional bond with her son” and had “an understanding of
effective parenting and continues to show growth on what skills
and knowledge she is obtaining during her parenting classes.”
Ace was “very connected” to Mother, often clapping and yelling
“mama” while waiting for her by the front door of the
Department’s office.
Mother missed two visits in August 2025. On August 7
Mother cancelled a visit, stating she had been in a car accident
the previous day. On August 27 Mother missed another visit,
and the social worker confirmed it was due to car trouble.
Mother was also significantly late to two visits around
August 2025 (35 minutes and 80 minutes).

9
The Department’s reports from April until July 2025
contained consistent praise for Mother regarding her parenting
and compliance with her case plan. For example, in a July 22
last minute information for the court (in advance of the 18-month
permanency review hearing), the Department stated it “applauds
mother for her continued resiliency and demonstration of
wanting to reunify with her child.” However, because Mother
“has exhausted the legal time allotted for family reunification
services” and the social worker “believes it is premature to
recommend that [Ace] return to the care of his mother,” the
Department recommended termination of reunification services.
In its September 2025 final status report, the Department
recommended termination of family reunification services due to
Mother’s “recent inconsistency and what originally warranted the
Department[’s] involvement with the family (substance use).”
The Department expressed concern “with the amount of time
mother has taken to get where she was recently” and her “recent
regression and disengagement in programs.” The Department
stated its belief that it would be premature for Ace to be placed
with Mother.

C. The Contested 18-month Permanency Review Hearing
Mother testified at the contested permanency review
hearing (§ 366.22) held on September 25, 2025. She stated she
had completed more than 52 parenting classes and that the
program would continue until Ace turned five years old. She was
learning “awareness of [Ace’s] mental, emotional, and physical
needs and how to attend to them properly,” including “noticing
evident and subtle cues of what [he] needs, whether it be he’s
tired, if he’s hungry, if he’s in emotional distress.”

10
Mother testified she had completed approximately 15 anger
management classes before being dropped from the program.
She missed about three weeks of classes but had already re-
enrolled. She was learning from the program “stress
management . . . [and] just being able to center myself and not let
my emotions dictate my behavior.” The lessons allowed her to be
“more grounded and a lot more responsive to my son.”
Mother acknowledged she had failed to attend anger
management classes and therapy sessions in August and failed to
appear for two drug tests during that month. She explained she
had been in a car accident around that time in which her car was
totaled, and she had suffered a “major concussion.” In addition,
she was also moving and changing jobs and was “in a state of
disassociation and derealization” that “made it very hard to
manage every single individual thing on top of just trying to take
care of myself and my son.” On cross-examination Mother
admitted she had stopped attending the anger management
program approximately two weeks before the car accident
because of “misconduct” that occurred in the class. She denied
that the provider was unable to get in touch with her during that
time. Regarding the two missed drug tests in August, Mother
stated she had been sick and had transportation issues.
The Department’s attorney asked Mother about her mental
health diagnosis. Mother testified that as a teenager she was in
a “lockdown facility” and was diagnosed with major depressive
disorder, complex post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, bipolar
disorder, and borderline personality disorder. She was given
medication at the time, but she and her psychiatrist agreed that
it was not in her “best interest” to continue the medication. She

11
met with a psychiatrist around the time Ace was born, but the
psychiatrist did not prescribe any medication.
Mother testified she wanted Ace to return to her custody,
stating, “I have fought very hard to be where I’m at today. I have
built a life for myself that I never thought I would have, and it
came from my son. My son was my motivation for everything I
did.”
The Department’s attorney argued the juvenile court
should terminate reunification services stating, “I don’t believe
that there’s enough evidence to show that [Mother] has made
enough progress, that she is stable enough to have this child in
her care.” She cited the fact that Mother was given more than
20 months of reunification services but “has not been able to
consistently participate in programming” and has not completed
her anger management classes, which was troubling in light of
her prior “altercations” with Father and paternal grandmother.
Further, Mother had provided differing explanations for her
missed drug tests in her statements to the Department and in
court.
Ace’s counsel agreed with the Department’s
recommendation to terminate reunification services. She argued
Mother “absolutely stopped her progress when she stopped
communicating effectively with her programs,” and she would be
“starting her programs all over again.” Further, Mother lacked
insight into her situation and had been previously diagnosed with
bipolar disorder, which typically requires medication. Ace’s
counsel noted there was no evidence whether Mother’s therapist
was aware of this prior diagnosis.

12
Mother’s counsel argued the Department had not met its
burden to show returning Ace to Mother’s custody would place
him at risk of harm. He emphasized that the Department’s
reports had been “glowing with praise” for Mother’s progress and
her “brief lapse does not discredit all the progress Mother has
been making up to this point.” Counsel asked the juvenile court
to return Ace to Mother’s custody or, in the alternative, to
continue reunification services pursuant to section 352.
The juvenile court found return of Ace to Mother’s custody
would create a substantial risk of detriment to Ace. The court
terminated family reunification services for Mother and set the
section 366.26 hearing to consider termination of parental rights.
The court further found that although Mother had been in
substantial compliance with her case plan, that was no longer the
case. The court stated it was “very concerned as to the actual
[reasons] why [Mother] stopped going to the programs, stopped
testing, missed visits. . . . The court does not think that it heard
an accurate reason for why that happened. And it concerns me
that there was either a relapse, or if not a relapse, . . . the
inability to follow through with the programs and the visits. And
really everything causes the court to question [Mother’s] ability
to have taken care of Ace during that time if he were already in
her care.” The court ordered Mother’s visits to revert to
unmonitored visits at the Department’s offices.
Mother timely filed a notice of intent to file a petition for
extraordinary writ, and on October 16, 2025 filed her petition
challenging the order terminating services and setting the
section 366.26 hearing. On October 22 we issued an order to
show cause why relief should not be granted.

13
DISCUSSION

A. Governing Law and Standard of Review
During the reunification stage after a child has been
removed from a parent’s custody, “the court ordinarily must order
child welfare services designed to facilitate the reunification of
the family. [Citations.] Such services may, depending on the
case, include evaluations and assessments, counseling, parent
education, substance abuse treatment and testing, and other
forms of assistance.” (Michael G. v. Superior Court (2023)
14 Cal.5th 609, 624.) Reunification services “‘“implement ‘the
law’s strong preference for maintaining the family relationships
if at all possible.’”’ [Citation.] This is because ‘services enable
[parents] to demonstrate parental fitness and so regain custody of
their dependent children.’” (Ibid.; accord, Tracy J. v. Superior
Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1424 [“Until services are
terminated, family reunification is the goal and the parent is
entitled to every presumption in favor of returning the child to
parental custody.”].)
“The Legislature has determined the juvenile court may
generally offer family reunification services for a maximum
period of 18 months.” (Georgeanne G. v. Superior Court (2020)
53 Cal.App.5th 856, 864 (Georgeanne G.); see §§ 361.5,
subd. (a)(3), 366.22, subd. (a); Cynthia D. v. Superior Court (1993)
5 Cal.4th 242, 249.) At the 18-month permanency review hearing
the juvenile court must order a child returned to a parent’s
custody unless it finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
return of the child will create a substantial risk of detriment to
the child’s safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being.
(§ 366.22, subd. (a)(1); Georgeanne G., at p. 864.) “That standard
is construed as a fairly high one. [Citation.] It does not mean the

14
parent in question is less than ideal, did not benefit from
reunification services as much as we might have hoped, or
seemed less capable than the available foster parent or other
family member.” (M.G. v. Superior Court (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th
646, 660.) The Department bears the burden of proving
detriment. (§ 366.22, subd. (a)(1); David B. v. Superior Court
(2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 768, 789.)
In determining detriment, the juvenile court shall consider,
among other things, “the social worker’s report and
recommendations,” and “the efforts or progress, or both,
demonstrated by the parent . . . and the extent to which they
availed themselves of services provided.” (§ 366.22, subd. (a)(1).)
The court shall “make appropriate findings” and “specify the
factual basis for its decision.” (Id., subd. (a)(1) & (2).)
If the child is not returned to a parent at the permanency
review hearing, the juvenile court must terminate reunification
services and order a hearing pursuant to section 366.26.
(§ 366.22, subd. (a)(3).) However, the court has discretion to
continue the permanency review hearing and the provision of
reunification services upon findings of good cause and that the
continuance is not “contrary to the interest of the minor.” (§ 352,
subd. (a)(1)-(2);3 see Michael G. v. Superior Court, supra,

3 Section 352, subdivision (a), provides: “(1). . . [T]he court
may continue any hearing under this chapter beyond the time
limit within which the hearing is otherwise required to be held,
provided that a continuance shall not be granted that is contrary
to the interest of the minor. In considering the minor’s interests,
the court shall give substantial weight to a minor’s need for
prompt resolution of his or her custody status, the need to
provide children with stable environments, and the damage to a
minor of prolonged temporary placements. ¶ Continuances

15
14 Cal.5th at p. 633 [“The power to continue the permanency
planning hearing [under section 352] implies a power to continue
reunification efforts. Section 352 makes clear that, despite the
law’s precise timeline for dependency proceedings, the
‘“‘Legislature never intended a strict enforcement’” of these
statutory limits to “‘override all other concerns[,] including
preservation of the family when appropriate.’”’”]; cf. Bridget A. v.
Superior Court (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 285, 311-312 [“[w]e do not
believe this 18-month limit on family reunification services
constrains the juvenile court’s authority to order family
maintenance services beyond that time for a child who has been
returned to the custody of his or her parent”]; Georgeanne G.,
supra, 53 Cal.App.5th at p. 864 [same].)
We review the juvenile court’s finding of detriment for
substantial evidence by considering whether the evidence,
contradicted or uncontradicted, supports the court’s finding.
(L.C. v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 1021, 1034;
Georgeanne G., supra, 53 Cal.App.5th at p. 864.) “We resolve all
conflicts in support of the determination, indulge in all legitimate
inferences to uphold the findings and may not substitute our
deductions for those of the juvenile court.” (Georgeanne G., at
p. 865; accord, In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773.) “However,
‘[s]ubstantial evidence is not synonymous with any evidence.
[Citation.] To be substantial, the evidence must be of ponderable
legal significance and must be reasonable in nature, credible, and
of solid value.’” (Georgeanne G., at p. 865; accord, In re J.A.
(2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 1036, 1046 [while substantial evidence

shall be granted only upon a showing of good cause and only for
that period of time shown to be necessary by the evidence
presented at the hearing on the motion for the continuance.”

16
may consist of inferences, any inferences must rest on the
evidence; inferences based on speculation or conjecture cannot
support a finding].)

B. The Department Failed To Meet Its Burden To Show Return
of Ace to Mother Would Create a Substantial Risk of
Detriment
Mother acknowledges she did not comply with her case
plan for the first 11 months of the case (December 2023 to
November 2024) by failing to enroll in programs and continually
testing positive for marijuana. However, for the 10 months prior
to the section 322.26 hearing (December 2024 to
September 2025), Mother was substantially compliant with her
case plan except for approximately one month during which she
stopped attending therapy and anger management classes and
missed two visits and two drug tests.
The juvenile court based its detriment finding on a concern
that Mother had relapsed or that she had an inability to follow
through with her programs and would not have been able to
appropriately care for Ace during the month that she ceased
complying with her case plan. None of these inferences was
supported by substantial evidence.
Regarding Mother’s ability to follow through with her
programs and care for Ace, she testified that she had re-enrolled
in therapy and anger management classes by the time of the
hearing, which the Department verified. There was no evidence
that the approximately one-month gap in programming resulted
in any risk to Ace, let alone a substantial risk. Mother was able
to articulate and apply what she had learned from the programs
despite her lapse in attendance. Although Mother failed to

17
attend anger management classes for approximately five weeks,
she had already completed 15 classes. Further, the record does
not support a finding that Ace was at risk of violence by Mother
given that the only violent incident described in the record
occurred three years before the permanency review hearing.
Mother’s discontinuation of therapy for approximately five weeks
likewise does not show Ace was at risk of harm. Mother had
consistently attended counseling sessions for more than six
months, and the therapist noted as recently as June 3, 2025 that
Mother was attending sessions regularly and “making significant
progress towards treatment goals.”
Moreover, despite Mother having been overwhelmed during
this period, she continued to have unmonitored visits with Ace,
and neither the Department nor Ace’s caregivers reported any
concerns about her behavior or treatment of Ace. In the absence
of any evidence establishing a nexus between Mother’s lapse in
programming and a risk of harm to Ace, the juvenile court’s
general concern that there could be a risk was not sufficient to
support a detriment finding. (See Georgeanne G., supra,
53 Cal.App.5th at p. 869 [“a finding of risk of harm to a child
must be based on more than conjecture or a theoretical concern”];
M.G. v. Superior Court, supra, 46 Cal.App.5th at pp. 661-662
[substantial evidence did not support detriment finding where
the child welfare agency “failed to articulate specific reasons why
or how the children would be at risk if placed in Mother’s or
Father’s care” and the court’s ruling relied on “vague and
nebulous concerns that were not supported by evidence”];
Jennifer A. v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1322, 1343
(Jennifer A.) [“Mother was not required to demonstrate perfect

18
compliance” with her case plan in order to avoid termination of
parental rights].)
Turning to the two missed drug tests in August 2025,
which we treat as positive tests, we agree with the juvenile court
that they raise concerns. However, there was no evidence linking
any marijuana use on those two occasions to a substantial risk of
detriment to Ace. The record does not show at any point in
August 2025 (or around that time) that Mother appeared to be
under the influence of drugs or exhibited troubling behavior
during her visits with Ace. Indeed, when Mother missed the
August tests, the Department did not immediately seek to curtail
her unmonitored visitation with Ace, instead waiting to raise the
missed tests at the next hearing a month later. “The question we
face is not whether Mother has an unblemished drug testing
record or whether Mother is a perfect parent. Rather, the
question is whether substantial evidence supports the juvenile
court’s finding that returning the children to Mother’s custody
would create a substantial risk of physical or emotional
detriment to the child[].” (Jennifer A., supra, 117 Cal.App.4th at
pp. 1327-1328.) We examine the missed tests in context and
conclude substantial evidence does not support that finding.
(Ibid.)
During Mother’s 11-month period of sobriety, she missed a
total of four tests (one in December 2024, one in February 2025,
and two in August 2025), and she tested negative 35 times.
Although the juvenile court expressed a concern that Mother did
not accurately state why she had missed the August 2025 drug
tests and instead may have relapsed, it is undisputed that
several extenuating circumstances were present at the time,
including a serious car accident in which she suffered a

19
concussion, Ace’s placement with a new family, Mother’s move to
new housing, and a conflict with the group leader at her anger
management program (which was not serious enough to prevent
her from re-enrolling). Although we treat the two missed drug
tests as positive tests, there is no evidence that Mother had used
any drugs other than marijuana during the approximately two
years since the initial referral. And the last time Mother tested
positive for marijuana was in October 2024, at which time she
showed signs of being drowsy during a visit with Ace. Over the
next 11 months leading to the permanency review hearing, there
were no signs of Mother being under the influence of drugs
around Ace, exhibiting troubling behavior around him, or other
concerning conduct that placed him at risk of harm. In this
context, Mother’s two missed tests, even in combination with the
5-week period in which she was not enrolled in therapy or anger
management classes, do not establish substantial evidence of a
substantial risk of detriment to Ace. (See Jennifer A., supra,
117 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1343, 1345-1346 [Mother’s nine missed
drug tests, one inability to void during testing, and one positive
test during 11-month period did not support finding of detriment
and termination of reunification services where all other tests
were negative and there was no evidence Mother used substances
around the children during that time].)
The Department contends in its opposition to the petition
that Mother’s mental health issues support the juvenile court’s
order, arguing that Mother’s failure to participate in all of her
programming in August 2025 due to being overwhelmed and
“suffering from dissociation and derealization” were concerning
“for a mother caring for a very young child and not being
overseen by a psychiatric and psychological professional.”

20
Further, the Department argues, Ace would not be safe with
Mother given her “history of mental health issues, which she was
not treating with psychotropic medications or overseen by a
psychiatrist.” We recognize that Mother disclosed her mental
health diagnoses at the onset of the case, but the Department did
not allege in the petition that Mother’s mental health placed Ace
at risk of harm, nor did the Department seek to have Mother
evaluated by a psychiatrist at any point. Mother’s therapist
never expressed a concern about Mother’s mental health, nor is
there any evidence in the record that medication was necessary
to treat Mother’s mental health issues. Other than Mother’s
testimony that she was briefly prescribed medication as a
teenager, the only reference in the record to medication is
Mother’s testimony that she met with a psychiatrist around
December 2023 (when Ace was born) who did not prescribe any
medication. Accordingly, the Department’s argument that
Mother’s mental health placed Ace at risk was based on nothing
other than speculation. (See In re A.G. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th
675, 684 [“‘harm may not be presumed from the mere fact of
mental illness of a parent’”]; see also In re B.H. (2024)
103 Cal.App.5th 469, 485 [“There must be some connection
between the parent’s mental health issues and the physical harm
or risk of physical harm to the child.”].)4

4 Because we order the juvenile court to hold another
permanency review hearing, we do not address Mother’s second
argument that the court abused its discretion in reverting
visitation to unmonitored within the Department offices. At the
new hearing, the court will need to determine whether Ace is
returned to Mother, and if not, what visitation is appropriate
based on the circumstances at the time.

21
DISPOSITION

The petition for extraordinary writ is granted. Let a
peremptory writ of mandate issue directing the juvenile court to
(1) vacate its order setting a hearing for Ace under section 366.26
and (2) set a continued 18-month permanency review hearing at
the earliest date consistent with the rights of the parties to
prepare their case. At a new hearing, in addition to the evidence
previously presented, the court is to consider all further evidence
of developments subsequent to September 25, 2025 relevant to
Ace’s safe return to Mother. In the interest of justice, this
decision shall become final as to this court five days from the date
it is filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).)

FEUER, J.
We concur:

MARTINEZ, P. J.

STONE, J.

22