In re A.L. CA2/2
B309128
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 22, 2021Background
- March 1, 2020 physical altercation at parents’ home: Father arrested for battery after Mother told police he groped her in the shower, pulled her hair, and grabbed her arm, leaving bruises; Mother received an emergency protective order (EPO).
- Mother initially told police and a DCFS social worker there had been three prior, unreported domestic-violence incidents; she later minimized/contradicted those statements.
- Father returned to the home the day after his arrest despite the EPO and denied serious violence; both parents later gave inconsistent accounts to DCFS and at adjudication.
- DCFS filed a petition under Welfare & Institutions Code § 300 alleging domestic violence in the children’s presence and Mother’s failure to protect; children remained at home under supervision.
- Juvenile court found parents’ later denials not credible, found a history of prior violence and risk to the children (including a two-year-old), sustained jurisdiction under § 300(b), ordered services (including a batterer program for Father), and declared the children dependents.
- Appellants appealed; the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding substantial evidence supported dependency jurisdiction based on domestic violence, the parents’ minimization/denial, and Father’s violation of the protective order.
Issues
| Issue | DCFS (Plaintiff) Argument | Parents (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supports jurisdiction under §300(b) for risk from domestic violence | The March 1 assault, Mother’s admissions of prior unreported incidents, children’s exposure, Father’s return despite EPO, and parents’ lack of insight create a substantial risk | The incident was isolated or mischaracterized; parents deny serious violence and dispute that children witnessed it | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports §300(b) jurisdiction based on domestic violence and risk to children |
| Whether a single reported incident is sufficient for jurisdiction | DCFS: the record shows ongoing verbal conflict, prior unreported incidents, and risk to young children—past violence predicts future harm | Parents: a single incident (or misreported facts) cannot justify dependency | Rejected: a single incident plus history, children’s exposure, and predictive factors can support jurisdiction (court may act before actual disaster) |
| Relevance of parents’ later denials, minimization, and violation of EPO | DCFS: denial and minimization indicate lack of insight and unwillingness to change; EPO violation shows disregard for protective measures and increases risk | Parents: they completed domestic-violence classes, minimized to avoid stigma, and claimed changed circumstances (separation) | Affirmed: denial and failure to comply with protective measures are relevant to predicting future risk and support need for supervision |
Key Cases Cited
- In re I.J., 56 Cal.4th 766 (court defers to juvenile court factual and credibility findings on appeal)
- In re Heather A., 52 Cal.App.4th 183 (domestic violence in the household is neglect under §300)
- In re L.O., 67 Cal.App.5th 227 (past violent behavior and parental denial support jurisdiction; risk to children even if not physically injured)
- In re R.C., 210 Cal.App.4th 930 (jurisdiction may be sustained though child witnessing violence was not physically hurt)
- In re K.B., 59 Cal.App.5th 593 (courts need not wait for disaster; denial supports inference conduct will continue)
- In re A.F., 3 Cal.App.5th 283 (parental denial is relevant to likelihood of future behavioral change)
- In re Gabriel K., 203 Cal.App.4th 188 (one cannot correct a problem one fails to acknowledge; denial undermines likelihood of voluntary correction)