L.A. Cnty. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Serv. v. O.R. (In re N.R.)

316 Cal.Rptr.3d 1

539 P.3d 417

IN RE N.R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.O.R., Defendant and Appellant.

S274943

Supreme Court of California.

December 14, 2023

Second Appellate District, Division Five, B312001, Los Angeles County Superior Court, 20CCJP06523A, Martha A. Matthews, Judge

Sean Angele Burleigh, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.

Duke Law School, Allison E. Korn; UCLA School of Law and Alicia Virani for W. David Ball, Barton Child Law and Policy Center, Paul Bennett, Leo Beletsky, Taleed El-Sabawi, Matthew I. Fraidin, Stephanie K. Glaberson, Cynthia Godsoe, Crystal Grant, Josh Gupta-Kagan, Julia Hernandez, Alex Kriet, Sarah Lorr, Laura Matthews-Jolly, Jennifer D. Oliva, Dorothy Roberts, Shanta Trivedi and Vivek San-karan as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Proskauer Rose, Jonathan M. Weiss, Justin B. Cohen, Los Angeles, Michelle K. Moriarty and Bradley M. Presant for Association for Multidisciplinary Education and Research in Substance Use and Addiction and California Society of Addiction Medicine as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Leslie A. Barry for Persons with Lived Experience in the Child Welfare System as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Martin Schwarz, Public Defender (Orange), and Brian Okamoto, Deputy Public Defender, for California Dependency Trial Counsel and California Appellate Defense Counsel as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Minouche Kandel; Elizabeth Gill, Faride Perez-Aucar; Brenda Star Adams and Jean Strout for American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California, the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California, the National Center for Youth Law and Children’s Rights, Inc. as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Kellen Russoniello for Drug Policy Alliance, Any Positive Change, Beyond Do No Harm Network, California Coalition for Women Prisoners, Children’s Defense Fund-California, CLARE Matrix, Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto, Elephant Circle, Immigrant Legal Resource Center, JMACforFamilies, Law For Black Lives, Legal Action Center, Legal Momentum, Women’s Legal Defense and Education Fund, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, National Harm Reduction Coalition, National Health Law Program, A New Path (Parent for Addiction Treatment & Healing), Pregnancy Justice, San Francisco AIDS Foundation and Sidewalk Project as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

The Hill Law Firm and Tasha Alyssa Hill for Professor Alan J. Dettlaff and Professors of Social Work and Social Workers as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva and Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, Sarah Vesecky and David Michael Miller, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Jennifer Hearing; David Chiu, City Attorney (San Francisco), Kimiko Burton and Elizabeth McDonald Muniz, Deputy City Attorneys, for California State Association of Counties as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.

Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J.

We granted review in this matter to decide two related issues associated with the exercise of dependency jurisdiction by the juvenile court.

The first issue concerns the meaning of "substance abuse" as used within Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1)(D) (hereinafter section 300(b)(1)(D)).¹ The statutory scheme for dependency proceedings provides that jurisdiction over a child exists in various scenarios in which the "child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness." (§ 300, subd. (b)(1).) These circumstances include situations in which serious physical harm or illness, or a substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness, results from an "inability of the parent or guardian to provide regular care for the child due to the parent’s or guardian’s mental illness, developmental disability, or substance abuse." (§ 300(b)(1)(D).) We must decide here whether substance abuse, in this context, requires either a diagnosis by a medical professional or satisfaction of the prevailing criteria for a substance use disorder as specified within the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), a text developed by the American Psychiatric Association.

[1] As to this issue, we hold that neither of these showings is essential under section 300(b)(1)(D). We interpret section 300(b)(1)(D) as assigning the term "substance abuse" its ordinary meaning — essentially, the excessive use of drugs or alcohol. Although a professional diagnosis or satisfaction of the DSM criteria for the pertinent substance use disorder can be relevant to ascertaining the existence of substance abuse under this standard, we do not read the statute as requiring such proof.

We caution, however, that for dependency jurisdiction to exist due to substance abuse pursuant to section 300(b)(1)(D), this abuse must render a parent or guardian unable to provide regular care for a child and either cause the child to suffer serious physical harm or illness or place the child at substantial risk of suffering such harm or illness. These additional requirements function to limit the circumstances in which a parent’s or guardian’s substance abuse will support the exercise of dependency jurisdiction under this provision.

The second issue before us relates to how these additional requirements may be established. Some courts have held that the existence of substance abuse by a parent or guardian, by itself, amounts to prima facie evidence of both an inability to provide regular care for a child and a substantial risk of serious physical harm when the child is of "tender years," a term that is sometimes used by courts to describe young children with limited ability to care for themselves. We reject this tender years presumption as inconsistent with the Legislature’s intent, as manifested in the statutory text. The age of a child may bear upon whether substance abuse renders a parent or guardian unable to provide that child with regular care, and whether the child is thereby placed at substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness. But the statutory scheme does not allow courts to treat a showing of substance abuse as always being sufficient on its own to establish these other requirements for dependency jurisdiction under section 300(b)(1)(D), even when a young child is involved.

Consistent with these conclusions, we reverse the judgment below and remand this matter to the Court of Appeal for further proceedings consistent with our opinion.

I.Factual and Procedural Background

On November 19, 2020, police officers executed a search warrant at the residence of N.R.’s mother, S.H. (Mother).² N.R. was 12 months old at the time. Mother lived separately from N.R.’s father, appellant O.R. (Father), with the two parents sharing custody of N.R.

During the execution of the search warrant, a social worker employed by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) spoke with Mother and inspected the premises. The social worker had safety concerns regarding N.R.’s living arrangements and asked Mother if N.R. could stay with Father while the investigation contin- ued. Mother agreed to contact Father, who soon arrived to pick up N.R.

The social worker accompanied Father to his apartment and toured it with him. The social worker’s assessment of Father’s residence was generally positive. N.R. was observed to be "clean, neat and on target with all developmental milestones." In speaking with the social worker, Father denied that he abused substances, and he agreed to take a drug test.

Father’s drug test, conducted that same day, came back positive for cocaine metabolite at a measured level of 1441 nanograms per milliliter. The social worker went to Father’s apartment to discuss the results with him. Father said he had been scared to reveal his cocaine use in their earlier conversation. He admitted he had used cocaine the weekend before the positive test. He said he did not know how much of the substance he had used. Father denied that he was an active user of cocaine. He explained that he used the cocaine to celebrate his birthday and had not expected he would be asked to take care of N.R. soon thereafter, and that he had not used drugs since then.

N.R. remained in Father’s care, with no concerns beyond those described above being noted by social workers, from November 19, 2020, until the execution of a removal order on December 8, 2020. Pursuant to this order, N.R. was placed in the care of a maternal uncle.

Shortly thereafter, a petition was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging that N.R. came within the dependency jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Tracking language appearing within section 300, subdivision (b)(1), the petition alleged that N.R. had suffered, or there was a substantial risk he would suffer, serious physical harm or illness "as a result of the failure or inability of his … parent or legal guardian to supervise or protect [him] adequately," "as a result of the willful or negligent failure of [his] parent or legal guardian to supervise or protect [him] adequately from the conduct of the custodian with whom [he] has been left," and "by the inability of the parent or legal guardian to provide regular care for [him] due to the parent’s or legal guardian’s mental illness, developmental disability, or substance abuse."

The factual allegations in the petition alleged, first, that Mother had created a dangerous home environment by allowing her mother (N.R.’s maternal grandmother), who allegedly abused drugs, to reside with Mother and N.R. According to the petition, Father failed to protect N.R. from this danger even though he knew or...