N.R., In re (2023) S274943 S274943; filed December 14, 2023. ![[Files/CaseFiles/S274943.PDF]] [Opinion PDF](https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S274943.PDF) ## Rule excerpts Welfare and Institutions Code section 300(b)(1)(D); substance abuse, inability to provide regular care, and serious harm or substantial risk are separate requirements. > 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. — N.R., In re (2023) S274943, slip op., p. 2. > We conclude that to uphold the Legislature’s intent, an inability to provide regular care and a substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness must be established on the facts of each case, without relying on a categorical rule providing that a “finding of substance abuse is prima facie evidence of the inability of a parent or guardian to provide regular care resulting in a substantial risk of physical harm” to a child of “ ‘tender years.’ ” (Drake M., supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 767.) — N.R., In re (2023) S274943, slip op., p. 47.