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 13, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In re J.A. CA2/7

California Court of Appeal

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: B340823

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (12)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (13.3K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

Filed 3/13/26 In re J.A. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re J.A. et al., Persons Coming B340823
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. 24CCJP02064A-B)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JACQUELINE A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Cristina Gutierrez Legaspi, Judge.
Affirmed and remanded with directions.
Benjamin Ekenes, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Brian Mahler, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

---

INTRODUCTION

Jacqueline A., the mother of minors J.A. (born 2010) and
J.M. (born 2018), appeals the juvenile court’s jurisdiction and
disposition order and its final custody order upon terminating
jurisdiction. Jacqueline contends the juvenile court lacked
substantial evidence to sustain the jurisdictional allegations. We
conclude there was substantial evidence the children were at a
risk of future serious physical harm or illness as required for
jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300,
subdivision (b)(1).1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The Dependency Petition and Detention Proceedings
In July 2024, the Los Angeles Department of Children and
Family Services (Department) filed a section 300 dependency
petition alleging Jacqueline failed to protect J.A. and J.M. (§ 300,
subd. (b)(1)). The Department alleged that Jacqueline “has a
history of mental and emotional problems, including diagnoses of

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

2
Schizoaffective Disorder Bipolar Type, self reported diagnoses of
ADHD, Major Depressive Disorder, Anxiety, OCD and PTSD,
[and] a history [of] psychiatric hospitalizations and
hallucinations, which renders the mother incapable of providing
regular care and supervision of the children.” The petition
further alleged that Jacqueline “has a history of substance abuse
including alcohol and is a current abuser of methamphetamine,
cocaine, marijuana and alcohol, which renders the mother
incapable of providing the children with regular care and
supervision.” The petition alleged Jacqueline’s mental illness
and substance abuse “endangers the children’s physical health
and safety and places the children at risk of serious physical
harm, damage and danger.”
The Department subsequently filed a detention report. The
Department reported that J.M.’s father was Juan M. Juan and
Jacqueline married in 2016, and lived together with J.A. and
J.M. J.A.’s biological father was Rene G., but he had “not had
any contact with [J.A.] over the past ten years.” At the time of
the report, J.A. was 14 years old and J.M. was six years old.
The report described that on June 4, 2024, the Department
received a referral alleging sexual abuse of J.M. by Juan and
general neglect of J.M. and J.A. by Jacqueline. The referral
described that Jacqueline had been homeless since she had an
argument with Juan in November 2023. According to the
referral, in 2023, when Jacqueline was bathing J.M., J.M.
accused Juan of “touch[ing] her in her vagina, anus and breasts
and kiss[ing] her in her vagina.” Jacqueline confronted Juan
“about the alleged sexual abuse,” and Juan kicked Jacqueline out
of the family home. Juan had been taking care of J.M. and J.A.
since November 2023. Jacqueline “claimed she previously

3
reported the alleged sexual abuse . . . and filed a police report,”
but could not provide further details.
The Department investigated the referral and spoke with
Juan on June 4, 2024. Juan stated that Jacqueline “has ongoing
mental health issues that created an unsafe environment for the
children,” and that he told Jacqueline “she cannot return to the
home until she receives help for her mental health needs.”
According to Juan, Jacqueline had been “diagnosed with bi-polar
and borderline personality disorder” and deemed “ ‘gravely
disabled’ by her mental illness,” but “she does not want to accept
it.” Juan described that “approximately two days after
Thanksgiving [2023], [Jacqueline] had a mental health ‘episode’ ”
where she became “physically aggressive with [the] maternal
grandfather” in the family home and was “placed on a psychiatric
hold by law enforcement.” Juan stated that “after that incident,
he had to choose the children.” Juan reported that there were
additional “past incidents of [Jacqueline] pushing him during a
mental health ‘episode,’ ” causing him to “walk away or call the
police.” Juan denied any sexual or physical abuse of the children
and any substance use, and he told the Department he was “not
surprised by [Jacqueline’s] allegation” because Jacqueline “has
threatened to make false reports against him ‘whenever she does
not get her way.’ ”
Juan reported that Jacqueline was currently homeless and
living with a boyfriend, she “sleeps on the streets in different
homeless encampments,” and that he believed Jacqueline was
“currently in the hospital.” Juan also reported that Jacqueline
told him she had “used methamphetamines.” According to Juan,
he used to bring Jacqueline food and “supplies” when she was
hospitalized or living in a homeless encampment, but he had not

4
seen her for “ ‘months’ ” since he encountered Jacqueline’s
“aggressive” dog and learned her encampment “was controlled by
a local gang.” Juan stated he planned to divorce Jacqueline and
“gain custody of [J.A.],” but currently “there is no family law
order for the children” and “no outstanding restraining order
between him and mother.”
The Department also spoke with J.A. and J.M. J.M. stated
her mother was “at the hospital because she is ‘sick’ ” and could
not “recall the last time she saw or talked to her mother.” J.M.
“denied anyone touching her on her private parts,” “anyone
kissing her private parts,” or “any forms of sexual abuse.” J.M.
also stated that “when her mother lived at the home, she ‘use[d]
to hit [Juan]’ ” but Juan did not hit Jacqueline.
J.A. reported he did not have contact with his mother or his
biological father, but he got along well with his stepfather Juan,
he did not experience any abuse or neglect from Juan, and he felt
“safe living with his stepfather.” J.A. said “he last saw his
mother about five months ago,” and it “ ‘didn’t end well,’ ”
because “ ‘[s]he was just yelling at [him],’ . . . but he knows that
he did not do anything wrong.” J.A. denied that J.M. was abused
or neglected, stating that J.M. “has not made any statements of
anyone touching her on her private parts.” J.A. also told the
Department that he heard Jacqueline “say that [J.M.] has been
abused” and that Jacqueline told Juan “that she will call the
police and say that [Juan] abused them.” J.A. also reported that
“in the past, mother has gotten upset and pushed his stepfather,”
but Juan did not hit or push Jacqueline and “ ‘just walked away
from her.’ ”
The Department spoke with Jacqueline on June 5, 2024,
while she was hospitalized at the psychiatric unit of St. Francis

5
Medical Center. Jacqueline reported she had not had contact
with her children since December 2023 and stated “she knows
that she needs to ‘get myself together’ but she still wants to be
able to see her children sometimes.” Jacqueline “mentioned that
she has ‘a lot of medical problems’ and that she wants to get
healthy so she can see her children more.” Jacqueline asserted,
“in December 2023, she was giving the child [J.M.] a bath when
[the] child told her that father touched her vagina. . . .
[Jacqueline] stated she has never witnessed father touching
[J.M.] or [J.A.] in an inappropriate way. . . . [Jacqueline] stated
that she told a detective and a social worker, but she did not get a
copy of the report . . . [and] she did not file a police report of what
[J.M.] told her.” Jacqueline also stated she was “ ‘kidnapped’ and
‘held hostage’ ” by her boyfriend and “was sexually assaulted
when she was taken hostage.”
The Department noted “[i]t was difficult . . . to engage with
[Jacqueline] as she expressed disorganized thoughts,” and it
ended the interview after Jacqueline started crying and “did not
appear to be in a condition to continue.” According to hospital
staff, Jacqueline was “diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder bi-
polar type and she also suffers from night terrors.” Staff reported
Jacqueline was hospitalized, subject to a “14-day hold that could
be extended,” she was taking “psychotropic medications,” and she
would next be “transferred to an in-patient facility.”
The Department interviewed the maternal great-aunt
(Marie B.) and the maternal grandmother (Gladys A.). Marie had
“recently reconnected with mother at the end of 2023 and found
out that she has some severe mental health issues. [Marie]
reported mother is homeless and she has been in at least ten
different mental health facilities since the beginning of the year.

6
[Marie] further reported mother told her that she has abused
drugs.” Marie stated that “mother told her that she thinks the
child [J.M.] is being abused by the father. . . . [M]other also told
her that she should have reported her suspicions of [J.M.] being
abused but she was dealing with a lot and did not think that
people would believe her. [Marie] stated she does not know
whether to believe mother or not. [Marie] reported mother has
bi-polar, hallucinates and sometimes says things that are not
true.”
Maternal grandmother Gladys reported Jacqueline “began
to exhibit [a] mental health crisis about 1 year ago,” describing
the crisis as “ ‘manic episodes.’ ” Gladys described that “due to
her behavior and mental health,” Jacqueline “left the home and
began to live from place to place ending in a homeless situation.
In the last year, [Jacqueline] started to neglect her children and
was no longer able to care for them.” Gladys believed
Jacqueline’s “mental health prevents her from being a mother to
her children.” Gladys stated “she and her husband have made
many efforts to help [Jacqueline], but she refuses to take her
medication,” and “when [Jacqueline] is off her medication, she is
aggressive and violent” with Gladys and the maternal
grandfather (Luis A.). Gladys “hop[ed]” Jacqueline’s “current
hospitalization stabilizes her mental health.”
Gladys had “consistent contact” and “a close relationship
with the children,” and she stated “the children have never
reported any concern about [Juan]” including any “sexual abuse,
physical abuse or neglect.” Gladys also had not heard any
allegation from Jacqueline or any other person that the children
were being abused, and she asserted, “if she observed or
suspected concerns, she would file a report to protect” the

7
children. Gladys had no concerns about Juan’s parenting and
stated he was “doing a good job raising the children.”
The Department interviewed the family again on June 20,
2024. J.M. stated she missed her mother and had not seen or
spoken to her, and she described that her parents used to
“ ‘argue’ ” and Jacqueline would “ ‘hit’ ” Juan. J.A. reported he
now saw Jacqueline “a few times a week,” and that she “ ‘wasn’t
okay’ and that ‘things are better’ without her being in the home.”
J.A. stated Jacqueline would “ ‘argue’ . . . due to [her] mental
health,” she “would ‘yell for no reason,’ ” and she would “ ‘smoke
weed’ ” in front of him, but not in front of J.M. J.A. said “he got
so used to [Jacqueline’s yelling] that it did not bother him or
make him feel afraid,” and he “denied physical altercations
between [his parents].”
Juan similarly reported that the children were doing “ ‘a lot
better now’ ” since Jacqueline left the home, because her “bipolar
disorder and her episodes . . . [were] affecting the children’s
grades and attendance.” Juan stated Jacqueline was now living
with the maternal grandparents, and he allowed J.A. to see
Jacqueline at the grandparents’ home because he was “older and
is able to communicate better,” but J.M. had not seen Jacqueline
during that time. Juan described that Jacqueline “has had ‘many
51/50 [psychiatric] holds’ since November 2023, has a diagnosis of
Bipolar and possibly a personality disorder, and that she has not
taken steps to take control of her mental health.” Juan
confirmed there were “verbal altercation[s]” between him and
Jacqueline, but nothing “physical.” During these arguments, “he
would try to keep [] away from [Jacqueline], but due to her
declining mental health and her episodes becoming more
frequent, he would try to walk away from her to let her cool

8
down. . . . [T]here were a few times when [Jacqueline] would
block the door so that he could not leave,” and Jacqueline “got to
the point where she was ‘easily triggered’ and anything could
cause her to ‘have an episode.’ ”
Juan asserted that Jacqueline “would smoke weed from a
vape pen and drink alcohol,” although “due to the meds she was
on and her diagnosis, she was not supposed to use either,
especially not combined.” Juan “explained that [Jacqueline]
claimed to use the weed to help with anxiety, but he felt it made
her symptoms worse.” Juan stated Jacqueline “had a ‘problem’
with the alcohol and when he talked to her about it, she stopped
for about a year and then started drinking again. He explained
that she would drink to get drunk and received a DUI in 2020
because of her level of drinking.” Juan reiterated that Jacqueline
“told him she recently used Meth while she was homeless.”
Juan described that in November 2023, Jacqueline “had a
manic episode at home.” According to Juan, Jacqueline “did not
sleep well” the night before. Juan was away from the house
when he called Jacqueline and noticed that “she sounded ‘off,’ ”
because “when she is having or in the middle of an episode, her
pattern of speech changes.” Juan asked maternal grandfather
Luis to check on Jacqueline, and “[a] short time later, . . . [Juan]
received a call and heard screaming and commotion, which
prompted him to race home.” When Juan entered the house, “he
found [Jacqueline] on the ground thrashing around and being
held by [Luis]. [Juan] stated that it sounded like [Jacqueline]
was ‘possessed’ because she was not making any sense. [Juan]
stated that they contacted law enforcement and that, once police
arrived and entered the home, [Jacqueline’s] demeanor changed
and she began to ask the officers for ‘help.’ ”

9
Juan stated “he was planning to file the divorce and
custody papers soon” and request “Guardianship for [J.A.],” but
the Department social worker advised that “to her
understanding, Family Law will not touch a case if the family is
involved in a Dependency court case.”
The Department contacted Jacqueline and scheduled an on-
demand drug test for June 25, 2024. Jacqueline informed the
Department “that she may test positive for Marijuana, as she
uses marijuana gummies to help with her anxiety and
depression.” “A short time later,” Jacqueline called the
Department and “explained that she was at a party Friday night,
06/21/2024, and ‘did cocaine.’ [Jacqueline] stated that she does
not ‘usually’ do drugs like that and that she is ‘going through a
lot’ without the children.”
The Department reinterviewed Jacqueline on June 26 at
the maternal grandparents’ home. Jacqueline stated “she is not
currently employed, as she recently ‘got back’ from being on a
psychiatric hold and is working towards improving her mental
health.” Jacqueline reported she was attending outpatient
mental health treatment “1-2 days a week,” where she was
“mostly participating in group-sessions for Anger Management”
and “self-care.” She had an upcoming psychiatric appointment
“to determine if her medication is appropriate or if any changes
need to be made, along with getting her set[ ]up with individual
therapy.” “Regarding [her] mental health diagnosis,” Jacqueline
“stated that she has not been given an official diagnosis for what
she has been experiencing, but ‘possibly Bipolar Disorder.’ ”
Jacqueline also stated she was “diagnosed with ADHD, Major
Depressive Disorder, Anxiety, OCD, and PTSD.” Jacqueline
described “she was prescribed Cymbalta for anxiety, which she

10
‘almost had a stroke’ from and caused her to be hospitalized due
to the negative side effects. . . . [She] described herself as ‘not the
same’ since taking this medication and having this experience.”
The Department received materials from Jacqueline’s caseworker
from a mental health outpatient program, confirming that
Jacqueline was currently attending treatment “ ‘2-3 times a
week, and has not missed an appointment,’ ” and she was
“ ‘cooperative and engaged in [caseworker] conversations and
during the group.’ ”
“Regarding drug and alcohol use/abuse, [Jacqueline] stated
that she first tried drugs when she was 16 years old. She stated
that she smoked meth that was laced with fentanyl, which
caused her to overdose. She further stated that she recently was
‘forced’ to do crystal meth while being ‘held captive’ . . . [S]he was
being blamed for calling the police and was forced to smoke the
crystal meth by being threatened to be killed by her captor. . . .
[O]ther than those incidents, she typically would just do ‘THC’
marijuana gummies, which she felt helped with her depression
and anxiety. As for alcohol, [Jacqueline] stated that she
currently does not drink, but would drink ‘sometimes’ when she
was still living with [Juan] . . . [and] would occasionally ‘pass out’
from her drinking.” Jacqueline “stated that she got a DUI a few
years ago and was sober ‘for some time,’ but when she became
homeless, she would drink to numb herself.”
About her recent cocaine use, Jacqueline described “she
bought cocaine from someone that lives in the area,” and she was
“alon[e] when she ‘snorted it.’ ” Although she previously told the
Department she did cocaine “at a party,” Jacqueline “stated that
she was not at a party, but was outside [her] home.” Jacqueline
“did ‘two lines,’ ” “felt ‘euphoric’ and ‘active,’ ” and “ ‘didn’t like

11
it.’ ” “She expressed ‘regret’ for what she did and explained that
she has been ‘struggling’ since she was kicked out of the home by
[Juan]. Between going from being with the children ‘24/7’ to only
seeing [J.A.] a few times and not seeing or speaking with [J.M.]
since she left, along with her trauma from being homeless and
her hospitalizations, [Jacqueline] stated she needed an outlet.”
Jacqueline recounted that J.M. told her Juan “ ‘touched her
down there’ . . . when [Juan] was cleaning her when she had used
the bathroom.” Due to “marital issues” with Juan, and because of
J.M.’s statement, Jacqueline “ ‘blew up’ ” on Juan, started a
“verbal fight,” and had a “ ‘breakdown,’ ” causing the maternal
grandparents to call the paramedics. Jacqueline recalled that
J.A. was “present and witnessed what happened,” but she was
not sure if J.M. saw the incident. Jacqueline was hospitalized,
then stayed for a time with great-aunt Marie, but developed
“issues” because Marie “tri[ed] to ‘control’ her.” Jacqueline then
stayed at her parents’ home, but she left after a “fight” over
“putting [her] under conservatorship.” Jacqueline stated “she
met a person on the streets who offered to let her [] spend the
night in his tent.” Jacqueline stayed with this man “longer than
she intended” and “during the last month of being there,” she was
“threatened by him and others,” who “ ‘beat’ her up and
threatened to kill her.” Jacqueline stated she was “held ‘captive,’
[and] she was ‘forced’ to use meth.” Jacqueline stated this man
also threatened her parents. She was able to “ ‘escap[e]’ ” and she
“was found by paramedics, who transported her to the nearest
hospital.” Jacqueline “told them the story from the beginning,
which included [J.M.]’s disclosure. [Jacqueline] stated she did
not intend it to cause [the Department’s] involvement and that
she does not feel the children are in any danger while in the care

12
of [Juan]. She stated that she feels the children are ‘well taken
care of with him.’ ”
Maternal grandmother Gladys stated that before
Jacqueline’s “episode in 2022[,] [she] was a very good mother. . . .
After 2022, [Gladys] stated that [Jacqueline] became more
isolated, possibly from depression, and was not mentally there.”
Gladys “was concerned that due to [Jacqueline]’s mental health
that [she] could have neglected the children.” If Jacqueline “were
to have the children alone in this moment,” Gladys did “not feel
that [Jacqueline] would be capable of harming the children;
however, she feels that [Jacqueline] is still in the process of
stabilizing her mental health and feels that she needs to do that
prior to seeing the children alone.” Gladys “stated that she feels
[Jacqueline] has really improved and is working hard to get
herself and her mental health on track. . . . [Jacqueline] misses
the children and has been struggling without them, but is
working hard to be better for them.”
Maternal grandfather Luis concurred that, as a parent,
Jacqueline was “very sweet and has good intentions. However,
he feels her mental health has affected her. He stated that she
was prescribed medication and either was not taking [it], or was
taking medications that gave her adverse side effects[,] . . .
[which] caused her to become easily frustrated with the children
and verbally aggressive.” Luis described that Jacqueline “would
say negative things about [Juan] and claim that he would treat
her badly, but then when her mental health stabilized, would
deny what she said or would change the story.” Luis believed
Jacqueline’s “mental health is more stable and has improved, as
he feels she is more centered and determined to get better.”

13
The Department also contacted an officer from the
Los Angeles Police Department, Officer Knolls, who responded to
Juan and Jacqueline’s home for a “ ‘female mental illness call’ ” in
2023. Officer Knolls “explained that mother appeared to be in
the ‘beginning stages’ of her mental health. He also stated that,
although she was not a threat to herself or others, ‘She was off’ ”
and had “ ‘turned the house inside out’ ” and “ ‘flipped everything
over.’ ” Officer Knolls “attempted to have the MEU (Mental
Evaluation Unit) come to the home to place mother on a hold,”
but was “able to convince mother to leave the home and stay with
maternal grandparents,” where she “placed herself on a
voluntary psychiatric hold.”
Officer Knolls later responded to Jacqueline’s report of
suspected child abuse in June 2024, about “8-12 months” after
the mental illness call. Arriving at the family home, Officer
Knolls observed “that the children appeared to be fine and that
mother was not in the home,” and Juan reported Jacqueline was
“living ‘in a truck or van’ and that [Juan] would drop off food and
clothing ‘to keep her away.’ ” Officer Knolls stated “he did not
have any concerns for the children while in the care of [Juan], as
long as mother stays away. He described it as being ‘quiet’ since
mother left the home.”
The juvenile court held a detention hearing on July 18,
2024, and detained J.A. and J.M. from Jacqueline with an order
of monitored visitation for Jacqueline. The court found Rene was
J.A.’s presumed father and Juan was J.M.’s presumed father, and
it released the children to their respective fathers. Rene agreed
to let J.A. remain in Juan’s care.

14
B. Jurisdiction and Disposition Proceedings
The Department prepared a jurisdiction and disposition
report in August 2024.
As to the allegations of neglect due to mental illness,
Jacqueline told the Department she did not agree that
“schizoaffective disorder” was “an accurate diagnosis. My current
diagnosis is bipolar disorder type 2. [This] [d]iagnosis was given
to me as a result of my time with [current mental health
provider]. The Schizo [a]ffective disorder diagnosis comes from
my most recent psych hospitalization. All the other diagnos[es] I
believe are correct.” Jacqueline also commented:

“Since all of this has happened, I am actually doing
really well and I am very happy with taking care of
myself. I believe the therapy and the medication that
I’m currently taking are all working very well. There
w[ere] never any hallucinations as it was described
previously. I would say the biggest impact on me was
I was very short and frustrated and became at times
aggressive. None of this was around my children as I
was already out of the house at this time. My
children have never seen [my] mental state. I do
agree that I was not taking [my] medication and it
was affecting my ability to care for my children.
When I am good with my mental health, I don’t have
any negative side effects and it never would affect my
ability to care for the children. I am currently taking
Lamotrigine a mood stabilizer, gabapentin, Strattera
and Wellbutrin all to deal with anxiety and

15
depression. I am also currently enrolled in therapy
and seeing a psychiatrist[.] I am currently enrolled
in [Narcotics Anonymous] meetings and I have a
sponsor.”

J.M. told the Department she missed her mother, “ ‘but she
was very mad and yelled a lot. I am not afraid of her and like to
play with her.’ ” J.A. reported, “ ‘I like to spend time with my
mom now when she is healthy . . . I feel like my mom is so much
happier now. I can tell spending time at the hospital and getting
on her medication, she is doing much better. Before she was very
upset and would get mad very easily. I feel like she is doing so
much better now and I’m very proud of her. I like being with her
and just want her to be ok.’ ”
Juan stated, “ ‘I’m not sure about all these diagnoses that
are listed [in the dependency petition]. I thought it was just
bipolar. As I stated earlier when Jacqueline’s mental health is on
point, she is a great mother and I would never have any concerns
for her about her ability to care for [the] children. However,
when her mental health is not correct, there are some significant
concerns which are well documented. As I said earlier, I believe
she is doing much better and is getting the help that she needs
through therapy, taking her medication and any of the other
programs that she is currently involved in. There is so much
difference when she is in a good place mentally.’ ” Grandparents
Gladys and Luis reported they felt “ ‘really positive because
[Jacqueline] is going to her classes and taking her medications.
[We are] very happy with her . . . [while] monitoring the visits
[with the children]. [We] love seeing the children as they interact

16
with mom and see that she is healthier. She loves these children
and would do anything.’ ”
As to the substance use allegations, Jacqueline stated: “ ‘I
don’t agree with [the dependency petition] where it says [c]urrent
user. I am going to [Narcotics Anonymous][,] I am not abusing
meth. I never did that in front of my children. I used cocaine
when I was living on the streets and[/]or at my mom’s house, but
it was never in front of my children. The only drugs that I ever
used when I was at home was marijuana. I got into meth as well
as cocaine when I was living on the street. I did it out of the
environment that I was living in. I am not currently using any
medication or drugs in a negative way. Even back in 2021 when I
had my DUI[,] I was not around my children. The children were
with their grandparents during that time. I don’t feel like there
was any negative impact on my children.’ ”
Juan believed the drug use allegations were “ ‘all from
[Jacqueline’s] past. She is not currently using, and I don’t think
it’s fair that we hold her accountable to things that have
happened in the past. I believe this all happen[ed] when she was
last on her hospital hold. She was never around me and I never
would’ve been OK with it. Part of that reason is why I kicked her
out of the house and why we are no longer together.’ ” The
maternal grandparents stated they were “ ‘tak[ing] [Jacqueline]
to the [Narcotics Anonymous] meeting[s]’ ” and didn’t “ ‘have any
concerns for he[r] using the drugs or alcohol . . . the way [they]
did before. If [we] did [we] wouldn’t allow her in [our] home and
also wouldn’t allow the kids to be around her if she was drinking
or using drugs.’ ” Jacqueline’s Narcotics Anonymous sponsor
Rhonda, stated: “I feel that mother is making great progress in
attending meetings and is very determined in meetings. She has

17
been sober since 6/21/24 [and] committed to staying this way for
herself and her children. She attends her meetings and I don’t
have any concerns for her right now.” J.M. did not know “what
drugs were,” and J.A. stated he “ ‘never saw my mom use drugs
or drink.’ ”
The Department’s jurisdiction and disposition report
observed, “During the course of this assessment, the Department
has been able to observe the family’s resilience and found that
both father[s] . . . [are] extremely resilient in that despite
mother’s instability with her mental health the children have
been well cared for and loved. Both father[s] are gainfully
employed and are providing for the basic necessities of the
children’s lives. . . . Regarding mother Jacqueline A[.], she
appears to be bouncing back from the most recent manic episode
and has accepted that her mental health is going to be an ongoing
work [sic] moving forward and is already enrolled and connected
to psychiatric, therapy and mental health case management.”
The Department concluded, “[t]he children have been observed
interacting with both mother and father and appear to be
comfortable interacting with both and provided statements that
they have never felt unsafe in mother and father’s care.”
Visitation, monitored by maternal grandmother Gladys, was
reportedly “going great. Children report that visits are going well
and they enjoy spending the time with mother and that she is so
much happier now that she is healthy.”
When asked about his family’s needs, Juan stated, “ ‘I want
to know that Jacqueline continues with her mental health stuff
as I can see the huge difference in her. When she is in a good
place mentally, she is such a loving and caring mother. She just
needs to stay on her therapy, and medications.’ ” Rene expressed

18
his need to “ ‘be there with my son [J.A.]’ ” and he agreed that
“ ‘Jacqueline needs to be able to manage her mental health and
stay clean and sober.’ ” J.A. and J.M. both “miss[ed]” Jacqueline
and J.A. asserted his desire for Jacqueline “to just be healthy and
happy . . . [I] want to be with her again when she is healthy.”
The juvenile court held a combined jurisdiction and
disposition hearing on August 30, 2024. Over Jacqueline’s
objection, the court sustained the dependency allegations as pled
and found J.A. and J.M. were children described by section 300,
subdivision (b).
As to disposition, the court declared J.A. and J.M.
dependents of the court and removed the children from
Jacqueline. The court awarded sole physical custody of J.A. to
Rene and J.M. to Juan, but it noted Rene could “continue” his
“arrangement” with Juan for care of J.A. The court also gave
Jacqueline joint legal custody with Rene and Juan, advising
“fathers, you are to consult with mother on any serious education,
healthcare, or any decisions including your children, but if
mother is not responsive, you have tie-breaking authority.” The
court further ordered Jacqueline was “not to reside” in the family
home with Juan but would receive monitored visitation. The
court then terminated dependency jurisdiction.
Jacqueline timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

A. Governing Law and Standard of Review
Section 300 provides that a child “is within the jurisdiction
of the juvenile court” and may be “adjudge[d] . . . to be a
dependent child of the court” if “[t]he child has suffered, or there

19
is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical
harm or illness, as a result of . . . [t]he inability of the parent or
guardian to provide regular care for the child due to the parent’s
or guardian’s mental illness . . . or substance abuse.” (§ 300,
subd. (b)(1)(D).) The statute “require[s] [the Department] to
demonstrate three elements”: “(1) . . . inability to provide regular
care for the child due to mental illness . . . or substance abuse[];
(2) causation; and (3) ‘serious physical harm or illness’ to the
minor, or a ‘substantial risk’ of such harm or illness.” (In re
Joaquin C. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 537, 561 (Joaquin C.).) The
Department “bears the burden of proving that the minor comes
under the juvenile court’s jurisdiction by a preponderance of the
evidence.” (In re Israel T. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 47, 51; accord, In
re M.R. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 886, 896.)
“Section 300 requires proof a child is subject to the defined
risk of harm at the time of the jurisdiction hearing. [Citations.]
But the ‘court “need not wait until a child is seriously abused or
injured to assume jurisdiction and take steps necessary to protect
the child.” [Citation.] And a parent’s “ ‘ “[p]ast conduct may be
probative of current conditions” if there is reason to believe that
the conduct will continue.’ ” [Citation.] However, “ ‘[t]o establish
a defined risk of harm at the time of the hearing, there “must be
some reason beyond mere speculation to believe the alleged
conduct will recur.” ’ ” ’ ” (In re Gilberto G. (2024)
105 Cal.App.5th 52, 62; accord, In re S.F. (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th
696, 712-713.)
“ ‘ “ ‘We review the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings
for sufficiency of the evidence. [Citations.] We review the record
to determine whether there is any substantial evidence to
support the juvenile court’s conclusions, and we resolve all

20
conflicts and make all reasonable inferences from the evidence to
uphold the court’s orders, if possible. [Citation.] “However,
substantial evidence is not synonymous with any evidence.
[Citations.] A decision supported by a mere scintilla of evidence
need not be affirmed on appeal. [Citation.] Furthermore, ‘[w]hile
substantial evidence may consist of inferences, such inferences
must be “a product of logic and reason” and “must rest on the
evidence” [citation]; inferences that are the result of mere
speculation or conjecture cannot support a finding [citations].’
[Citation.] ‘The ultimate test is whether it is reasonable for a
trier of fact to make the ruling in question in light of the whole
record.’ ” ’ ” ’ ” (In re B.D. (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 315, 323-324
(B.D.); accord, In re J.A. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 1036, 1046.) “ ‘We
do not reweigh the evidence or exercise independent judgment,
but merely determine if there are sufficient facts to support the
findings of the trial court.’ [Citation.] [The appealing parent]
bears the burden on appeal to show that the evidence was not
sufficient to support the finding.” (In re M.C. (2023)
88 Cal.App.5th 137, 151.)
“As a general rule, a single jurisdictional finding supported
by substantial evidence is sufficient to support jurisdiction.” (In
re M.W. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1444, 1452.) Thus, “[w]hen a
dependency petition alleges multiple grounds for its assertion
that a minor comes within the dependency court’s jurisdiction, a
reviewing court can affirm the juvenile court’s finding of
jurisdiction over the minor if any one of the statutory bases for
jurisdiction that are enumerated in the petition is supported by
substantial evidence. In such a case, the reviewing court need
not consider whether any or all of the other alleged statutory
grounds for jurisdiction are supported by the evidence.” (In re

21
Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 451 (In re Alexis E.); accord,
In re Jonathan B. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 873, 875-876.)

B. Substantial Evidence Supports Dependency Jurisdiction
Under Section 300, Subdivision (b)(1)
Jacqueline argues there was no substantial evidence of a
substantial risk to J.M. and J.A. of serious physical harm or
illness, as required for dependency jurisdiction under section 300,
subdivision (b)(1). In Jacqueline’s view, “even assuming there
was a nexus between [her] mental illness” or substance abuse
“and an inability to provide regular care for the children,” the
Department failed to prove a substantial risk of harm to the
children because “Juan was able to protect the minors from any
harm,” he “was providing the daily care for both children, and
was keeping the children safe from mother.” We affirm the
juvenile court’s jurisdiction and disposition orders on the ground
that Jacqueline’s mental illness posed a substantial risk of
physical harm to the children.
Here, the juvenile court found that Jacqueline’s mental
illness caused a substantial risk of harm to the children. For
purposes of dependency jurisdiction, “ ‘[h]arm to the child cannot
be presumed from the mere fact of mental illness of the parent.’ ”
(In re Kristin H. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1635, 1652 (In re Kristin
H.); accord, Joaquin C., supra, 15 Cal.App.5th at p. 563.)
Instead, “[t]here must be some connection between the parent’s
mental health issues and the physical harm or risk of physical
harm to the child.” (In re B.H. (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 469, 485;
accord, In re A.L. (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 1044, 1049-1050 (A.L.).)
Jacqueline argues there was no risk of harm to her
children, citing A.L., supra, 18 Cal.App.5th 1044 and In re A.G.

22
(2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 675 (A.G.). In A.L., a mother with
schizophrenia suffered a manic episode in the family home and
“became very upset, accusing [her family of] trying to poison her”
and “started throwing objects, including a shoe that hit [her
daughter] on her arm or head.” (A.L., at p. 1046.) Mother’s
teenage son “physically restrained Mother while the father called
law enforcement for assistance.” (Ibid.) Mother was placed on an
involuntary psychiatric hold and hospitalized; she had previously
been hospitalized for mental health and prescribed medication,
but had “refus[ed]” to take her medication regularly in the
previous year. (Ibid.) The juvenile court sustained jurisdictional
allegations under section 300, subdivision (b)(1), based on
mother’s “mental and emotional problems,” which the court found
placed the children at substantial risk of serious physical harm.
(Id. at pp. 1048-1049.) The Court of Appeal reversed for lack of
substantial evidence, noting “[a]lthough Mother had been
diagnosed with schizophrenia for some time, this was the first
time the family sought assistance from law enforcement,” “[n]o
one was injured and the father acted quickly to obtain
appropriate help,” “the evidence showed that [the children] were
well cared for in spite of the reality that Mother suffered from
mental illness,” and “the family worked together to manage the
situation and their efforts were successful.” (Id. at p. 1051.)
Because there was no “reason to believe that the father and the
family will be unable to safely handle any future problems . . . the
juvenile court erred in asserting jurisdiction.” (Ibid.)
In A.G., the Court of Appeal also concluded the juvenile
court “erred in sustaining a petition that alleged only that
Mother is mentally ill and is unable to care for the minors where
Father has always been, and is, capable of properly caring for

23
them.” (A.G., supra, 220 Cal.App.4th at p. 683.) In that case, the
mother had lived with schizoaffective disorder for “seven or eight
years” before the dependency proceedings, and her mental illness
remained untreated at the time of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction
hearing: Mother “refused to take her medication . . . [,] denying
that she had a mental illness,” she “was not ‘able to develop a
loving maternal bond with’ the minors,” and she had “ ‘recently
bec[ome] very psychotic with poor insight and judgment.’ ” (Id. at
pp. 683-684.) “Although the evidence supported the finding that
Mother was unable to provide regular care for the minors due to
her mental illness, Father ha[d] shown remarkable dedication to
the minors and that he is able to protect them from any harm
from Mother’s mental illness. Father ensured that there was
adult supervision, other than Mother, of the minors at all
times . . . and temporarily moved out of the house with the
minors to protect them from Mother.” (Id. at p. 684.)
In contrast to A.G. and A.L., there was significant evidence
of a “substantial risk” to J.M. or J.A. of “serious physical harm or
illness” because of Jacqueline’s mental illness. (§ 300, subd.
(b)(1).) The evidence here indicated that for some time before the
November 2023 incident, Jacqueline was experiencing more
significant mental health problems with increased frequency,
which the family described as “ ‘manic episodes.’ ” Jacqueline
“refuse[d] to take her medication” during her escalating mental
health crisis and instead used marijuana and alcohol, which Juan
observed “made her symptoms worse.” Jacqueline agreed that at
this time, “ ‘I was not taking [my] medication and it was affecting
my ability to care for my children.’ ” Juan reported that in “past
incidents,” Jacqueline “push[ed] him during a mental health
‘episode,’ ” causing him to “walk away or call the police.” J.M.

24
described that her parents used to “ ‘argue’ ” and Jacqueline
would “ ‘hit’ ” Juan. J.A. similarly reported that “in the past,
mother has gotten upset and pushed his stepfather,” but Juan did
not hit or push Jacqueline and “ ‘just walked away from her.’ ”
Juan, J.A., and J.M. also described that Jacqueline would start
“verbal altercation[s]” and “ ‘yell for no reason.’ ” Grandmother
Gladys similarly stated Jacqueline was “aggressive and violent”
with her and grandfather Luis.
The juvenile court could reasonably conclude from these
accounts that if Jacqueline had a manic episode while with the
children, there was a substantial risk she would cause physical
harm to the children. Unlike A.G. and A.L., there was evidence
here that Juan had previously called the police on Jacqueline to
control her mental health episodes. This was evidence that the
family did not know how to manage Jacqueline’s mental health
crises, in contrast to the families in A.L. and A.G. Whereas the
children in A.L. “were not youngsters” and “knew what to do
when Mother was in a manic state,” J.M. was six years old or
younger at the time of Jacqueline’s escalating mental health
crisis. (A.L., supra, 18 Cal.App.5th at p. 1051.) Jacqueline
argues that there was no substantial evidence of a future risk of
physical harm to the children because Juan barred her from the
family home to protect the children after the November 2023
police visit. But the juvenile court could reasonably infer from
this evidence that Juan did not know how to handle or mitigate
Jacqueline’s mental health episodes while she was living with the
children, and thus, there was a substantial risk of physical harm
to the children if Jacqueline were permitted in the family home
again or had unmonitored visitation.

25
While Jacqueline relies on A.G. and A.L., those cases also
did not involve a parent’s mental illness compounded by
substance abuse. Here, there was evidence that Jacqueline used
marijuana and alcohol in the home, including in front of J.A.
Jacqueline admitted “she would occasionally ‘pass out’ from her
drinking” while living with Juan and that she was convicted of a
DUI within the past few years. Juan stated Jacqueline “was not
supposed to use either [alcohol or marijuana], especially not
combined,” “due to the meds she was on and her diagnosis,” and
he believed that this substance use made Jacqueline’s mental
health symptoms worse. It was undisputed that after Jacqueline
left the family home, she experienced a severe, months-long
episode of mental illness wherein she became homeless; used
alcohol, methamphetamine, and cocaine to cope; and passed in
and out of psychiatric hospitalization, which led to a new
diagnosis of schizoaffective bipolar disorder. Although Jacqueline
had been participating in mental health and substance use
treatment for approximately two months at the time of the
jurisdiction hearing, her participation was new, and the juvenile
court could reasonably infer that her stability was tentative given
her years-long history of escalating mental health crises, along
with her escalating substance use.
Taken together, these circumstances are substantial
evidence that Jacqueline’s mental health posed a substantial risk
of physical harm to the children if she returned to the family
home or had unmonitored visitation. (See In re Kristin H., supra,
46 Cal.App.4th at p. 1654 [affirming finding of substantial risk of
physical harm because of mother’s mental illness and substance
abuse where evidence showed “that the mother was in crisis and
that [child] should not be in her care,” “the mother’s drug abuse

26
exacerbated her condition and impaired her already poor
judgment and her ability to function as a mother,” mother “would
not regularly take medications which could have been helpful in
stabilizing her mood swings,” and “[i]n times of stress, she
resorted to drugs”].)
Because substantial evidence supported at least one
jurisdictional finding, we need not address the juvenile court’s
additional jurisdictional finding that Jacqueline’s substance
abuse also posed a substantial risk of physical harm to the
children. (See In re Alexis E., supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at p. 451.)

C. Remand is Appropriate To Conform the Juvenile Court’s
Written Custody Exit Order to Its Oral Ruling
Jacqueline requests, and the Department does not oppose,
clarification of the court’s custody exit order, because the oral and
written rulings are in conflict. The parties agree that the court’s
oral custody ruling controls over its written exit orders.
Here, the court’s oral ruling provided for joint legal custody
and ordered “fathers . . . to consult with mother on any serious
education, healthcare, or any decisions including your children,
but if mother is not responsive, you have tie-breaking authority.”
But the written custody orders, while providing for joint legal
custody, stated more generally that Rene had “tie breaking
decision making authority over [J.A.] where parents do not agree
on an issue” and, regarding J.M., that Juan had “tie breaking
authority regarding legal custody issues.” The written custody
orders also did not expressly order Juan and Rene to consult with
Jacqueline on “decisions including your children.”
“The Courts of Appeal have reached differing conclusions
regarding which order controls when a juvenile court’s oral

27
pronouncements differ from its written order.” (In re Karla C.
(2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1236, 1259, fn. 9.) But here, where the
parties agree that the oral custody ruling controls over the
written custody orders, we remand and direct the juvenile court
to conform the written custody orders to its oral ruling. (See In re
A.C. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 796, 800 [“direct[ing] the juvenile
court to correct the exit order so it is consistent with the oral
order regarding visitation”]; In re Maribel T. (2002)
96 Cal.App.4th 82, 86 [where “written custody order fail[s] to
conform to the juvenile court’s oral order,” the appropriate
remedy is to “modify the custody order to conform to the juvenile
court’s oral ruling and affirm”].)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. The matter is remanded to the
juvenile court to correct the final custody orders to conform to its
oral ruling, i.e., to indicate that “fathers . . . are to consult with
mother on any serious education, healthcare, or any decisions
including your children, but if mother is not responsive, you have
tie-breaking authority.”

MARTINEZ, P. J.

We concur:

FEUER, J. STONE, J.

28