Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Shortly after twins Lo.G. and Le.G. were born in February 2024, the Solano County Department of Health and Social Services removed them from parents J.G. (father) and L.J. (mother) after mother tested positive for fentanyl and methamphetamine before giving birth. Father tested positive for methamphetamines the day after the birth and disclosed a chronic pattern of drug use. Both parents received reunification services; the case was transferred to Santa Cruz County and dismissed in February 2025, with the children returned to them.
In July 2025, the Santa Clara County Department of Family and Children's Services received a referral alleging both parents had relapsed. Father admitted methamphetamine use and a longstanding pattern dating to his teens; the department substantiated neglect by father but closed the referral. In October 2025, another referral alleged neglect by mother, and father admitted recent methamphetamine use and tested positive for alcohol. In November 2025, both parents were arrested for drug possession, child endangerment, and domestic violence in the children's presence. The department obtained a warrant from the juvenile court, took the children into protective custody, and placed them temporarily with their maternal grandmother.
The department filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1), citing risk of serious harm from domestic violence and untreated substance abuse. At the detention hearing, the juvenile court found continuance in the home contrary to the children's welfare and detention necessary due to substantial danger. Father completed a residential treatment program in late December 2025. At the combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing in early January 2026, father submitted on jurisdiction but contested removal and out-of-home placement.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed the dispositional orders removing the children from father's custody under section 361. Reviewing for substantial evidence while accounting for the clear and convincing evidence burden, the court found adequate support for the findings of substantial danger and no reasonable alternatives to removal. The record showed father was a longstanding methamphetamine user whose addiction had not resolved despite prior services, that he admitted relapsing twice in 2025, and that he had not completed two earlier residential programs before finishing one in December 2025. The social worker, qualified as an expert, testified that father's relapse history increased the risk to the children and that he could not yet maintain sobriety skills in daily life.
The court distinguished In re Jasmine G., which involved corporal punishment of a teenager by parents with no substance-abuse history, from this case involving persistent substance abuse and domestic violence. Although the juvenile court commended father's honesty and considered his recent treatment, it found he remained in the early steps of recovery, had been discharged only days before the hearing, and had a pattern of relapsing after services. Because the children were just under two and required consistent, active supervision, the court could reasonably infer that father could not yet safely parent twin toddlers alone.
The court also rejected father's argument that the juvenile court failed to satisfy section 361, subdivision (e)'s reasonable-efforts requirement. The juvenile court made the mandated finding that reasonable efforts were made and recited supporting facts, including the parents' domestic violence, extensive substance-abuse histories, the prior dependency case, and father's early stage of recovery. The department's third addendum report detailed its efforts to assess father's treatment progress, recovery plan, and suitability as a placement. The court held the department satisfied its burden by a preponderance of the evidence and that the juvenile court need not separately articulate each effort on the record.
Key Takeaways
- A removal order under section 361 is affirmed if substantial evidence supports a finding of substantial danger, even when the parent recently completed treatment.
- Chronic addiction, repeated relapses after treatment, and early-stage recovery can support removal of toddlers who require constant supervision.
- The juvenile court must state the facts supporting removal and find whether reasonable efforts were made, but need not separately describe each effort on the record.
- An agency makes reasonable efforts by meaningfully assessing the parent's treatment progress, recovery plan, and suitability as a placement; other possible measures do not make efforts insufficient.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces deferential substantial-evidence review of dispositional orders and clarifies that recent completion of treatment does not erase the danger posed by a chronic addiction with a history of relapse. It also clarifies section 361, subdivision (e): the court must state facts supporting removal and make a reasonable-efforts finding, but need not separately articulate each effort, and a detailed narrative addendum report can satisfy the agency's obligation to discuss its efforts.