In re M.W. CA1/5, A161338

Background

Newborn M.W. tested positive for methamphetamines at birth; hospital physicians observed signs consistent with withdrawal (excessive jitteriness, high-pitched cry). Mother denied drug use and refused some newborn screens/assessments.
Maternal grandmother reported Mother had a history of methamphetamine use and believed Mother continued to use; Mother had prior disorderly conduct convictions for intoxication.
San Francisco Human Services Agency filed a dependency petition under Welfare & Institutions Code §300(b)(1) and (g), alleging risk from maternal substance abuse, maternal refusal of medical treatment for the infant, and domestic violence concerns involving the father.
Mother did not contact the Agency, and social workers were unable to locate or engage her before the contested hearing.
Juvenile court found jurisdiction (true findings on counts B1(A)–(C) and B3) and ordered removal of Minor from Mother’s custody; Mother appealed arguing insufficient evidence for jurisdiction and removal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §300(b)(1) jurisdiction was supported by substantial evidence	Agency: combined evidence (positive meth test at birth, hospital observations of withdrawal, grandmother’s reports of ongoing and past drug use, and Mother’s refusal of certain newborn care) supports risk of harm	Mother: a single positive test is insufficient to show ongoing substance abuse; infant’s jitteriness/crying could be explained by being awakened/cold; relied on cases like In re J.A.	Affirmed: substantial evidence supported §300(b)(1) jurisdiction based on the totality of the evidence; court distinguished In re J.A. and similar decisions because here methamphetamine exposure and doctor observations were present and grandmother corroborated ongoing use
Whether removal from Mother’s custody was justified	Agency: Mother’s continued drug use and failure to engage with Agency created a substantial danger with no reasonable alternatives	Mother: expressed amenability to services and Minor was reported as easy to care for, so removal was unnecessary	Affirmed: removal proper—clear and convincing evidence that return posed substantial danger due to Mother’s lack of participation and alleged ongoing meth use
Whether appellate court should reach Mother’s challenge though father’s unappealed finding could alone support jurisdiction	Agency: unchallenged finding against father would suffice to uphold jurisdiction	Mother: requests that her own challenge be considered on the merits	Court exercised discretion to review Mother’s challenge because the dispositional orders were also contested, and ultimately affirmed the orders

Key Cases Cited

In re A.R., 228 Cal.App.4th 1146 (2014) (jurisdiction may rest on the conduct of one parent; appellate court may nonetheless review both parents’ issues when dispositional orders are challenged)
In re J.A., 47 Cal.App.5th 1036 (2020) (medical-marijuana prenatal-use case distinguishing when prenatal exposure presumption applies; clarified presumption applies where child is diagnosed as born under influence of a dangerous drug)
In re N.M., 197 Cal.App.4th 159 (2011) (removal requires proof that child’s welfare necessitates removal due to substantial risk and no reasonable alternatives; clear and convincing standard)
In re Kadence P., 241 Cal.App.4th 1376 (2015) (juvenile court need not wait until a child is seriously injured before assuming jurisdiction)
In re L.C., 38 Cal.App.5th 646 (2019) (distinguished: parental past use followed by clean tests before hearing weighed against jurisdiction)
In re Destiny S., 210 Cal.App.4th 999 (2012) (remote historical drug use will not necessarily support current jurisdiction when intervening stability is shown)
In re Alexzander C., 18 Cal.App.5th 438 (2017) (standard of appellate review for jurisdictional/dispositional findings is substantial evidence)