In re Alexzander C., B282183

Background

Father and Mother have two minor children (ages 13–14 and 11) and a history of a prior §300 dependency in 2009 based on Mother’s methamphetamine use; Father was granted custody then.
In December 2016 DCFS received a report alleging both parents used methamphetamine in the home; drug tests for both parents returned positive.
Children were detained and a §300(b) petition alleged parental substance abuse rendered them incapable of providing appropriate care; children denied witnessing parental drug use and were doing well in school.
At adjudication the court received DCFS reports and stipulated parental testimony that they had tested clean and were entering treatment; the court found parents were recent methamphetamine users and that the children faced substantial risk of harm.
The court ordered reunification services and removal of the children from parental custody; Father appealed the jurisdictional and dispositional orders.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether substantial evidence supports that Father has a substance abuse disorder under §300(b)	DCFS: father’s long history, increased use, admissions of addiction, and related dependency proceedings show a substance abuse disorder	Father: he is a "user," not an "abuser," and does not meet clinical criteria for abuse/disorder	Court: affirmed — substantial evidence (admissions, frequency increase, craving, legal consequences) supports methamphetamine use disorder finding
Whether parental methamphetamine use created substantial risk of serious physical harm to children	DCFS: parental addiction, message to children, easy access to drugs, parental denial and failure to complete treatment create future risk	Father: children are doing well (school, health, relatives provide support); no present harm or link to serious physical harm	Court: affirmed — risk can be based on environment, example, access, and likelihood of future harm (Rocco M. analogy)
Whether removal from parental custody was authorized under §361(c)(1)	DCFS: no reasonable means to protect children (parents not in treatment yet, prior noncompliance, Mother returned despite prior dependency)	Father: parents provide safe home; removal unnecessary and disproportionate	Court: affirmed — clear and convincing finding of substantial danger and no reasonable alternative supported removal
Whether petitioner’s pleadings or court’s language (omitting "serious physical") invalidated jurisdiction	Father: court failed to expressly find "serious physical harm" as required	DCFS/Appellee: petition and evidence establish required risk; appellant forfeited facial challenge	Court: rejected as forfeited and, in any event, substantial evidence supports risk of serious physical harm

Key Cases Cited

Jennifer A. v. Superior Court, 117 Cal.App.4th 1322 (2004) (defines proof of substance abuse for §300 via medical diagnosis or recognized criteria)
In re Drake M., 211 Cal.App.4th 754 (2012) (uses DSM criteria and discusses evidence sufficient to show parental substance abuse and risk)
In re Christopher R., 225 Cal.App.4th 1210 (2014) (applies DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for substance use disorders in dependency context)
In re Rocco M., 1 Cal.App.4th 814 (1991) (parental drug use and home environment can create substantial risk by providing means/opportunity and normalizing drug use)
In re Rebecca C., 228 Cal.App.4th 720 (2014) (section 300(b) requires evidence connecting parental conduct to a substantial risk of serious physical harm)
In re N.M., 197 Cal.App.4th 159 (2011) (removal proper based on parental inability to provide care and potential detriment to child)
Sheila S. v. Superior Court, 84 Cal.App.4th 872 (2000) (appellate review applies substantial evidence standard even when trial required clear and convincing proof)
In re John M., 212 Cal.App.4th 1117 (2012) (adequacy of petition is irrelevant if jurisdictional findings are supported by substantial evidence)