positive defense in California

1968Appellant offered no defense before the committing magistrate or in the trial court but for the first time on this appeal raises the issue of entrapment, contending that Baker was used by Officer Garifo to induce him to commit the crime of which he was convicted. “ ‘ [Entrapment “is a positive defense imposing upon an accused the burden of showing that he was induced to commit the act for which he is on trial” [citations].’ {People v. Braddock, 41 Cal.2d 794, 803 [ 264 P.2d 521 ].)” {People v. Terry, 44 Cal.2d 371, 372 [ 282 P.2d 19 ].) The defense must be raised in the trial court; it cannot

1968Appellant offered no defense before the committing magistrate or in the trial court but for the first time on this appeal raises the issue of entrapment, contending that Baker was used by Officer Garifo to induce him to commit the crime of which he was convicted. “ ‘ [Entrapment “is a positive defense imposing upon an accused the burden of showing that he was induced to commit the act for which he is on trial” [citations].’ {People v. Braddock, 41 Cal.2d 794, 803 [ 264 P.2d 521 ].)” {People v. Terry, 44 Cal.2d 371, 372 [ 282 P.2d 19 ].) The defense must be raised in the trial court; it cannot

1966The language “burden of showing” is found in People v. Lee, 9 Cal.App.2d 99, 109 [ 48 P.2d 1003]; People v. Grijalva, 48 Cal.App.2d 690, 694 [ 121 P.2d 32 ]; People v. Schwartz, 109 Cal.App.2d 450, 455 [ 240 P.2d 1024 ]; and in People v. Braddock, 41 Cal.2d 794, 803 [ 264 P.2d 521 ], where it is said: “Entrapment ‘is a positive defense imposing upon an accused the burden of showing that he was induced to commit the act for which he is on trial’ [citations].

1966The language “burden of showing” is found in People v. Lee, 9 Cal.App.2d 99, 109 [ 48 P.2d 1003]; People v. Grijalva, 48 Cal.App.2d 690, 694 [ 121 P.2d 32 ]; People v. Schwartz, 109 Cal.App.2d 450, 455 [ 240 P.2d 1024 ]; and in People v. Braddock, 41 Cal.2d 794, 803 [ 264 P.2d 521 ], where it is said: “Entrapment ‘is a positive defense imposing upon an accused the burden of showing that he was induced to commit the act for which he is on trial’ [citations].

1968Appellant offered no defense before the committing magistrate or in the trial court but for the first time on this appeal raises the issue of entrapment, contending that Baker was used by Officer Garifo to induce him to commit the crime of which he was convicted. “ ‘ [Entrapment “is a positive defense imposing upon an accused the burden of showing that he was induced to commit the act for which he is on trial” [citations].’ {People v. Braddock, 41 Cal.2d 794, 803 [ 264 P.2d 521 ].)” {People v. Terry, 44 Cal.2d 371, 372 [ 282 P.2d 19 ].) The defense must be raised in the trial court; it cannot

1968Appellant offered no defense before the committing magistrate or in the trial court but for the first time on this appeal raises the issue of entrapment, contending that Baker was used by Officer Garifo to induce him to commit the crime of which he was convicted. “ ‘ [Entrapment “is a positive defense imposing upon an accused the burden of showing that he was induced to commit the act for which he is on trial” [citations].’ {People v. Braddock, 41 Cal.2d 794, 803 [ 264 P.2d 521 ].)” {People v. Terry, 44 Cal.2d 371, 372 [ 282 P.2d 19 ].) The defense must be raised in the trial court; it cannot

1966The language “burden of showing” is found in People v. Lee, 9 Cal.App.2d 99, 109 [ 48 P.2d 1003]; People v. Grijalva, 48 Cal.App.2d 690, 694 [ 121 P.2d 32 ]; People v. Schwartz, 109 Cal.App.2d 450, 455 [ 240 P.2d 1024 ]; and in People v. Braddock, 41 Cal.2d 794, 803 [ 264 P.2d 521 ], where it is said: “Entrapment ‘is a positive defense imposing upon an accused the burden of showing that he was induced to commit the act for which he is on trial’ [citations].

1966The language “burden of showing” is found in People v. Lee, 9 Cal.App.2d 99, 109 [ 48 P.2d 1003]; People v. Grijalva, 48 Cal.App.2d 690, 694 [ 121 P.2d 32 ]; People v. Schwartz, 109 Cal.App.2d 450, 455 [ 240 P.2d 1024 ]; and in People v. Braddock, 41 Cal.2d 794, 803 [ 264 P.2d 521 ], where it is said: “Entrapment ‘is a positive defense imposing upon an accused the burden of showing that he was induced to commit the act for which he is on trial’ [citations].

1966The language “burden of showing” is found in People v. Lee, 9 Cal.App.2d 99, 109 [ 48 P.2d 1003]; People v. Grijalva, 48 Cal.App.2d 690, 694 [ 121 P.2d 32 ]; People v. Schwartz, 109 Cal.App.2d 450, 455 [ 240 P.2d 1024 ]; and in People v. Braddock, 41 Cal.2d 794, 803 [ 264 P.2d 521 ], where it is said: “Entrapment ‘is a positive defense imposing upon an accused the burden of showing that he was induced to commit the act for which he is on trial’ [citations].

1966The language “burden of showing” is found in People v. Lee, 9 Cal.App.2d 99, 109 [ 48 P.2d 1003]; People v. Grijalva, 48 Cal.App.2d 690, 694 [ 121 P.2d 32 ]; People v. Schwartz, 109 Cal.App.2d 450, 455 [ 240 P.2d 1024 ]; and in People v. Braddock, 41 Cal.2d 794, 803 [ 264 P.2d 521 ], where it is said: “Entrapment ‘is a positive defense imposing upon an accused the burden of showing that he was induced to commit the act for which he is on trial’ [citations].

2025(In re E.E. (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 195 , 214; In re Christopher R. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1217 [mother missing a drug test was “properly considered the equivalent of a positive test 13 result . . . .” fn. omitted], disapproved on other grounds in N.R., supra, 15 Cal.5th at p. 650, fn. 18; In re Natalie A. (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 178, 186 [test was inconclusive due to a dilute urine sample, and father failed to show up for other drug tests he was ordered to take; “a reasonable inference could be drawn that father’s marijuana use was more frequent than the one admitted instance . . . .”].) A

2021While Mother disputed the claim that she was using drugs, with the exception of marijuana, and asserted that she had not used prior to S.P.’s birth (approximately for four to five months), the juvenile court was free to disbelieve her, especially since she refused each on-demand request to drug test, which the court could properly consider the “equivalent of a positive test result.” (In re Christopher R. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1217 (Christopher R.).) The record indicates Mother had a history of abusing drugs.

2021A parent’s failure to comply with a court-ordered drug test “ ‘is rightfully looked upon as a positive test.’ ” (In re Lana S. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 94, 104, fn. 5 ; In re N.M. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 845, 857 [if a parent fails to test as required by a court-ordered case plan, “ ‘the test will be considered positive for controlled substances’ ”].) But we do not believe this inference is appropriate when a parent has not been court-ordered to test, and merely declines to submit to voluntary drug testing.

2016(In re Lana S. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 94 , 104 & fn. 5 [ 142 Cal.Rptr.3d 792 ]; see also In re N.M. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 845, 857 [ 134 Cal.Rptr.2d 187 ] [parents obligated under case plan to prove abstinence from illegal drugs].) This is not a case where there is a reasonable explanation for missing a test; e.g., a parent gets off work late and belatedly arrives at a testing facility.

1962It is appropriately stated in People v. Tillman, 142 Cal.App.2d 404, 407 [ 298 P.2d 631 ] : “ [6] ' [T]he defense of entrapment is a positive defense imposing upon an accused the burden of showing that he was induced to commit the act for which he is on trial (citation). [7] To invoke the defense it must necessarily be assumed that the act charged as a public offense was committed’ (People v. Schwartz, 109 Cal.App.2d 450, 455 [ 240 P.2d 1024 ]).” (See also People v. Spencer, 193 Cal.App.2d 13, 18 [ 13 Cal.Rptr. 881 ] ; People v. Schwartz, 109 Cal.App.2d 450, 455 [ 240 P.2d 1024 ].) Tiller’s de

1962It is appropriately stated in People v. Tillman, 142 Cal.App.2d 404, 407 [ 298 P.2d 631 ] : “ [6] ' [T]he defense of entrapment is a positive defense imposing upon an accused the burden of showing that he was induced to commit the act for which he is on trial (citation). [7] To invoke the defense it must necessarily be assumed that the act charged as a public offense was committed’ (People v. Schwartz, 109 Cal.App.2d 450, 455 [ 240 P.2d 1024 ]).” (See also People v. Spencer, 193 Cal.App.2d 13, 18 [ 13 Cal.Rptr. 881 ] ; People v. Schwartz, 109 Cal.App.2d 450, 455 [ 240 P.2d 1024 ].) Tiller’s de

1962The invocation of the defense necessarily assumes that the act charged as puhlic offense was committed.” (Emphasis added.) The holding in Lee was followed in People v. Gelardi, 77 Cal.App.2d 467, 477 [ 175 P.2d 855 ], which quotes the language of the court above emphasized; the Supreme Court without a dissenting vote thereafter denied a hearing in Gelardi .

1962The invocation of the defense necessarily assumes that the act charged as puhlic offense was committed.” (Emphasis added.) The holding in Lee was followed in People v. Gelardi, 77 Cal.App.2d 467, 477 [ 175 P.2d 855 ], which quotes the language of the court above emphasized; the Supreme Court without a dissenting vote thereafter denied a hearing in Gelardi .

1962“But, in any event, entrapment is a positive defense as to which a *616 defendant asserting it has the burden of showing that he was induced to commit the act for which he is on trial. [Citation.]” (People v. Lollis, 177 Cal.App.2d 665, 670 [ 2 Cal.Rptr. 420 ].) The general rule is that a defendant who is enticed or persuaded into committing a crime by an entrapping policeman cannot be found guilty, but the availability of this defense of entrapment depends on whether or not the criminal intent originated in defendant’s mind or in the mind of the police officer.

1962“But, in any event, entrapment is a positive defense as to which a *616 defendant asserting it has the burden of showing that he was induced to commit the act for which he is on trial. [Citation.]” (People v. Lollis, 177 Cal.App.2d 665, 670 [ 2 Cal.Rptr. 420 ].) The general rule is that a defendant who is enticed or persuaded into committing a crime by an entrapping policeman cannot be found guilty, but the availability of this defense of entrapment depends on whether or not the criminal intent originated in defendant’s mind or in the mind of the police officer.

2026(In re A.F. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 283, 293 [denial is a relevant factor in assessing whether parent is likely to change behavior]; In re Gabriel K. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 188, 197 [“One cannot correct a problem one fails to acknowledge”].) And mother’s historical drug use further supports such a finding, as it demonstrates the risk that mother might relapse again.

2026(In re A.F. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 283, 293 [denial is a relevant factor in assessing whether parent is likely to change behavior]; In re Gabriel K. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 188, 197 [“One cannot correct a problem one fails to acknowledge”].) And mother’s historical drug use further supports such a finding, as it demonstrates the risk that mother might relapse again.

2025(In re E.E. (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 195 , 214; In re Christopher R. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1217 [mother missing a drug test was “properly considered the equivalent of a positive test 13 result . . . .” fn. omitted], disapproved on other grounds in N.R., supra, 15 Cal.5th at p. 650, fn. 18; In re Natalie A. (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 178, 186 [test was inconclusive due to a dilute urine sample, and father failed to show up for other drug tests he was ordered to take; “a reasonable inference could be drawn that father’s marijuana use was more frequent than the one admitted instance . . . .”].) A

2024(See In re Natalie A. (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 178, 186 [missed drug tests supported “reasonable inference . . . that father’s marijuana use was more frequent than the one admitted instance”]; In re Christopher R. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1217 [missed drug test “properly considered the equivalent of a positive test result”], disapproved on another ground in In re N.R. (2023) 15 Cal.5th 520 , 560, fn. 18.) On this record, substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court’s implied finding Mother failed to maintain her sobriety, placing L.C. at a substantial risk of detriment. 2.

2023(See, e.g., In re Noah G. (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1292, 1303-1304 [where mother missed all 11 drug tests after testing positive, “the juvenile court could reasonably conclude that common sense suggests a parent who consistently fails to appear for drug tests does so because of a consciousness of guilt”], disapproved of on other grounds by In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614 , 637, fn. 6; In re Kadence P. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1376, 1384 [mother’s history of marijuana and methamphetamine abuse, her refusal to take drug tests, and her provision of diluted samples when she did appear at a facili

2021(In re Kadence P. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1376, 1384 [“a missed drug test, without adequate justification, is ‘properly considered the 14 equivalent of a positive test result.’”].) Father had an extensive history of missed tests, and in the present matter, had missed his last three tests between March and May 2020.

2023(See, e.g., In re Noah G. (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1292, 1303-1304 [where mother missed all 11 drug tests after testing positive, “the juvenile court could reasonably conclude that common sense suggests a parent who consistently fails to appear for drug tests does so because of a consciousness of guilt”], disapproved of on other grounds by In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614 , 637, fn. 6; In re Kadence P. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1376, 1384 [mother’s history of marijuana and methamphetamine abuse, her refusal to take drug tests, and her provision of diluted samples when she did appear at a facili

2021(In re Noah G. (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1292, 1303-1304 [“Under these circumstances, the juvenile court could reasonably infer the mother’s failure to comply with a court-ordered drug test may be considered as a positive test.”].) Thus, substantial evidence supported the court’s finding that mother failed to make reasonable efforts to treat both her mental health and drug abuse issues; therefore, sufficient evidence supports the court’s order denying mother reunification services pursuant to the bypass provisions of section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (b)(11). 14 DISPOSITION The petition is d

2010(See Lawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1226 [“[o]ur deferential standard of review requires us to credit the Governor’s findings if they are supported by a modicum of evidence”].) Although the superior court found the 2002 violation’s relevance to Hare’s risk of current dangerousness had waned over time, we cannot agree that in the context of this particular violation seven years is too old to be probative.

2009(See Lawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1227.) The last psychological evaluation that addressed a critical issue regarding defendant’s mental state while incarcerated opined that he “continues to exhibit dependent features and an exaggerated need for acceptance.” It was this same mental state which contributed to his violent crimes prior to and including the murder.

1968This contention is without merit. ‘‘ Entrapment is a positive defense as to which a defendant asserting it has the burden of showing that he was induced to commit the act for which he is on trial. [Citations.] ” (People v. Cordray, 209 Cal.App.2d 425, 430-431 [ 26 Cal.Rptr. 42 ].) There is, in the present ease, no showing independent of Walters’ testimony to demonstrate that he was induced to commit the crime of selling heroin. “ ‘Where the doing of an act is a crime, regardless of the consent of anyone, the courts are agreed that if the criminal intent originates in the mind of the accused an

1968This contention is without merit. ‘‘ Entrapment is a positive defense as to which a defendant asserting it has the burden of showing that he was induced to commit the act for which he is on trial. [Citations.] ” (People v. Cordray, 209 Cal.App.2d 425, 430-431 [ 26 Cal.Rptr. 42 ].) There is, in the present ease, no showing independent of Walters’ testimony to demonstrate that he was induced to commit the crime of selling heroin. “ ‘Where the doing of an act is a crime, regardless of the consent of anyone, the courts are agreed that if the criminal intent originates in the mind of the accused an

1968Appellant offered no defense before the committing magistrate or in the trial court but for the first time on this appeal raises the issue of entrapment, contending that Baker was used by Officer Garifo to induce him to commit the crime of which he was convicted. “ ‘ [Entrapment “is a positive defense imposing upon an accused the burden of showing that he was induced to commit the act for which he is on trial” [citations].’ {People v. Braddock, 41 Cal.2d 794, 803 [ 264 P.2d 521 ].)” {People v. Terry, 44 Cal.2d 371, 372 [ 282 P.2d 19 ].) The defense must be raised in the trial court; it cannot

1968Appellant offered no defense before the committing magistrate or in the trial court but for the first time on this appeal raises the issue of entrapment, contending that Baker was used by Officer Garifo to induce him to commit the crime of which he was convicted. “ ‘ [Entrapment “is a positive defense imposing upon an accused the burden of showing that he was induced to commit the act for which he is on trial” [citations].’ {People v. Braddock, 41 Cal.2d 794, 803 [ 264 P.2d 521 ].)” {People v. Terry, 44 Cal.2d 371, 372 [ 282 P.2d 19 ].) The defense must be raised in the trial court; it cannot

1962(People v. Jones, 176 Cal.App.2d 743, 749 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 637 ]; People v. Terry, 44 Cal.2d 371, 372 [ 282 P.2d 19 ].) *432 It is stated in People v. Contreras, 201 Cal.App.2d 854, 856 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 551 ], as following in pertinent part: “It is obvious that the defendant was endeavoring to present evidence to show why he changed his mind from not wanting to assist in obtaining any narcotics to a willingness to participate in the events which later occurred.

1962(People v. Jones, 176 Cal.App.2d 743, 749 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 637 ]; People v. Terry, 44 Cal.2d 371, 372 [ 282 P.2d 19 ].) *432 It is stated in People v. Contreras, 201 Cal.App.2d 854, 856 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 551 ], as following in pertinent part: “It is obvious that the defendant was endeavoring to present evidence to show why he changed his mind from not wanting to assist in obtaining any narcotics to a willingness to participate in the events which later occurred.

1960(People v. Johnson, 99 Cal.App.2d 559, 562 [ 222 P.2d 58 ]; People v. Lee, 9 Cal.App.2d 99, 109 [ 48 P.2d 1003 ]; see People v. Evans, 134 Cal.App.2d 733, 737 [ 286 P.2d 368 ].) But, in any event, entrapment is a positive defense as to which a defendant asserting it has the burden of showing that he was induced to commit the act for which he is on trial.

1960(People v. Johnson, 99 Cal.App.2d 559, 562 [ 222 P.2d 58 ]; People v. Lee, 9 Cal.App.2d 99, 109 [ 48 P.2d 1003 ]; see People v. Evans, 134 Cal.App.2d 733, 737 [ 286 P.2d 368 ].) But, in any event, entrapment is a positive defense as to which a defendant asserting it has the burden of showing that he was induced to commit the act for which he is on trial.

1960(People v. Johnson, 99 Cal.App.2d 559, 562 [ 222 P.2d 58 ]; People v. Lee, 9 Cal.App.2d 99, 109 [ 48 P.2d 1003 ]; see People v. Evans, 134 Cal.App.2d 733, 737 [ 286 P.2d 368 ].) But, in any event, entrapment is a positive defense as to which a defendant asserting it has the burden of showing that he was induced to commit the act for which he is on trial.

1960(People v. Johnson, 99 Cal.App.2d 559, 562 [ 222 P.2d 58 ]; People v. Lee, 9 Cal.App.2d 99, 109 [ 48 P.2d 1003 ]; see People v. Evans, 134 Cal.App.2d 733, 737 [ 286 P.2d 368 ].) But, in any event, entrapment is a positive defense as to which a defendant asserting it has the burden of showing that he was induced to commit the act for which he is on trial.

1957It is there provided that if the holder of a rejected claim does not file suit thereon within the time therein specified ‘the claim shall be forever barred.’ This provision constitutes a statute of limitations.” Appellants also cite Lobrovich v. Georgison, 144 Cal.App.2d 567 [ 301 P.2d 460 ], in which the court said at page 575 with reference to section 714: “ ‘The statute of limitation is a positive rule of law, and the courts must, when it is pleaded, be governed by it where it applies . . .’ (Adams v. Hopkins, 144 Cal. 19, 28 [ 77 P. 712 ]).

1957It is there provided that if the holder of a rejected claim does not file suit thereon within the time therein specified ‘the claim shall be forever barred.’ This provision constitutes a statute of limitations.” Appellants also cite Lobrovich v. Georgison, 144 Cal.App.2d 567 [ 301 P.2d 460 ], in which the court said at page 575 with reference to section 714: “ ‘The statute of limitation is a positive rule of law, and the courts must, when it is pleaded, be governed by it where it applies . . .’ (Adams v. Hopkins, 144 Cal. 19, 28 [ 77 P. 712 ]).

2021A parent’s failure to comply with a court-ordered drug test “ ‘is rightfully looked upon as a positive test.’ ” (In re Lana S. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 94, 104, fn. 5 ; In re N.M. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 845, 857 [if a parent fails to test as required by a court-ordered case plan, “ ‘the test will be considered positive for controlled substances’ ”].) But we do not believe this inference is appropriate when a parent has not been court-ordered to test, and merely declines to submit to voluntary drug testing.

2016(In re Lana S. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 94 , 104 & fn. 5 [ 142 Cal.Rptr.3d 792 ]; see also In re N.M. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 845, 857 [ 134 Cal.Rptr.2d 187 ] [parents obligated under case plan to prove abstinence from illegal drugs].) This is not a case where there is a reasonable explanation for missing a test; e.g., a parent gets off work late and belatedly arrives at a testing facility.

2015(In re Brian M., supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 1402 , citing Randi R. v. Superior Court (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 67, 73 .) As indicated in Laura B., the case cited by father, proof of resistance can “come in the form of dropping out of programs, but it may also come in the form of resumption of regular drug use after a period of sobriety.” (Laura B., supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at p. 780 ; cf., Karen H. v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 501, 504 [“[h]ad there been a single positive test or even several positive tests within a period of a few days, petitioner’s drug use might have been considered on

2001(See Laura B. v. Superior Court (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 776, 780 [ 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 472 ].) Evidently, the positive test in March 1999 was such an isolated test and was so considered.

2000The court rejected this contention, stating that `We have no right to disregard a positive requirement of the statute, as it is not our province to make laws, but to expound them.' ( 40 Cal. at p. 138 .) In interpreting the statutory provision which then required that the jury `designate' (rather than the equivalent current term `find') the degree of the crime, the court stated: `The word "designate," *446 as here employed, does not imply that it will be sufficient for the jury to intimate or give some vague hint as to the degree of murder of which the defendant is found guilty; but it is equi

2000(Cf. Pen.Code, її 1163, 1164; People v. Cain (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1, 53-56 , 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 481 , 892 P.2d 1224 ; People v. Schroeder (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 730, 734-735 , 158 Cal.Rptr. 220 ; People v. Galuppo (1947) 81 Cal. App.2d 843, 850-851 , 185 P.2d 335 .) Penal Code section 1157, like the statute on which it was modeled, "establishes a rule to which there is to be no exception, and the Courts have no authority to create an exception when the statute makes none. [І] We have no right to disregard a positive requirement of the statute, as it is not our province to make the laws, but to expound

2026“It is well settled that . . . experienced officers may give their opinion that the narcotics are held for purposes of sale based upon such matters as quantity, packaging and normal use of an individual; on the basis of such testimony convictions of possession for purpose of sale have been upheld.” (People v. Parra (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 222, 227 [cleaned up].) Both Detective Vina and Officer Wittlief had extensive training and experience in narcotic sales.

2026(In re A.F. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 283, 293 [denial is a relevant factor in assessing whether parent is likely to change behavior]; In re Gabriel K. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 188, 197 [“One cannot correct a problem one fails to acknowledge”].) And mother’s historical drug use further supports such a finding, as it demonstrates the risk that mother might relapse again.

2026(In re A.F. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 283, 293 [denial is a relevant factor in assessing whether parent is likely to change behavior]; In re Gabriel K. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 188, 197 [“One cannot correct a problem one fails to acknowledge”].) And mother’s historical drug use further supports such a finding, as it demonstrates the risk that mother might relapse again.