In re Ariana B. CA2/1
B307774
| Cal. Ct. App. | Apr 13, 2021Background
- In January–March 2020 deputies investigated and arrested Adrian B. after finding he sold drugs from a bar and from the home he shared with the children’s mother. At arrest he had narcotics on his person.
- A search of the garage/laundry (not accessible from inside the house; father had the only key) uncovered methamphetamine, cocaine, pills, packaging paraphernalia, a digital scale, and a loaded 9mm handgun with an obliterated serial number.
- Four minors lived in the home: two younger children (father’s: age 3 and ~20 months) and two older children (mother’s by another man: ages 11 and 7). The older children reported they were allowed in the garage and were not told to stay out.
- Mother denied knowledge of the drugs and gun, but reported people frequently went in and out of the garage and father had a “man cave” there; she said she stayed inside with the kids.
- DCFS filed a Welfare & Institutions Code §300(b) petition alleging father created an endangering home environment and mother failed to protect. The juvenile court sustained the petition (as amended), removed the children from father, released them to mother with services, and ordered monitored visitation. Father appealed, arguing insufficient evidence and lack of nexus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether father’s drug sales and the loaded firearm supported juvenile-court jurisdiction under W&I §300(b) (substantial risk of serious physical harm) | Father ran an ongoing drug-selling operation from the garage, possessed large quantities and packaging paraphernalia, kept a loaded gun in the garage, and had drugs on his person—creating a substantial risk to children who had access to the garage | Garage/laundry was separate and not accessible from inside; no evidence children accessed the contraband; no showing of actual injury or that the drug activity exposed the children; insufficient nexus | Affirmed. Substantial evidence supported jurisdiction: children had access to garage, father had drugs on his person, and loaded firearm in home created substantial risk of serious harm. |
| Whether DCFS met its burden to show a current risk and a nexus between past conduct and present danger (and whether DCFS identified specific likely harms) | Past conduct was ongoing (weeks of surveillance), not a one-time lapse; DCFS identified concrete risks (children’s access, likelihood of recurrence, risk of retaliation, amount/value of drugs) showing present danger | DCFS failed to specify magnitude/likelihood of harm and thus failed to prove current risk or nexus | Affirmed. Court held DCFS met its burden: evidence supported an inference of likely recurrence and a present risk; DCFS’s specificity (access, weapon, trafficking scale, retaliation risk) sufficed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Yolanda L., 7 Cal.App.5th 987 (2017) (drug trafficking plus a loaded gun in the home supported §300(b) jurisdiction)
- In re C.V., 15 Cal.App.5th 566 (2017) (distinguishing facts where an unloaded, inaccessible shotgun did not create access risk for an infant)
- In re Dakota H., 132 Cal.App.4th 212 (2005) (substantial-evidence standard on appeal from juvenile-court jurisdiction and disposition findings)
- In re Travis C., 13 Cal.App.5th 1219 (2017) (juvenile jurisdiction is not defeated by inability to predict exactly how harm will occur; substantial risk suffices)