In re Ashley R. CA2/4, B306895

Background

Mother (L.I.) and Father (R.R.) have two children (born 2015 and 2017). DCFS investigated after Mother obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) alleging a history of domestic violence by Father, including incidents in Nov. 2019 and Jan. 2020 when Father grabbed Mother’s neck while she was holding the children.
Mother submitted a sworn TRO declaration describing repeated physical abuse (hands and charging cables) and stated the children had witnessed violence "all their lives." Mother later visited Father’s home after the TRO; Father and paternal grandmother reported Mother and the children had contact with Father despite the TRO.
DCFS detained the children and filed a petition under Welf. & Inst. Code § 300(a) and § 300(b)(1), alleging ongoing domestic violence (counts a-1, b-1) and Father’s alcohol abuse (b-2); an allegation that Mother abused alcohol (b-3) was later dismissed.
At adjudication the juvenile court sustained counts a-1, b-1 (domestic violence) and b-2 as to Father (striking allegations against Mother), found jurisdiction, removed the children from both parents, and ordered Mother to participate in domestic-violence support group, counseling (individual and conjoint if reconciling), and substance testing on suspicion.
Mother appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence for jurisdiction under §§ 300(a) and 300(b)(1); (2) removal was improper because the court should have ordered voluntary supervision under § 301 (or § 360(b)); and (3) ordering services was improper because there was no showing she would refuse to participate voluntarily. The Court of Appeal affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (DCFS)	Defendant's Argument (Mother)	Held
Jurisdiction under § 300(b)(1) based on ongoing domestic violence	Evidence (Mother’s TRO declaration and statements to CSWs, children’s spontaneous references) shows ongoing domestic violence in children’s presence creating substantial risk	Insufficient evidence of risk: no physical injury to children, only a neck-grab, no arrest, declaration unreliable (no K’iche’ interpreter)	Affirmed: substantial evidence supports jurisdiction under § 300(b)(1); child need not already be harmed and mother’s statements + child’s comments suffice
Removal vs. voluntary supervision (§ 301 / § 360(b))	Removal appropriate given history of violence, TRO violations, and parents’ deception; § 301 supervision unavailable after petition filed; § 360(b) discretionary and not requested	Less drastic informal supervision should have been ordered to keep family together	Affirmed: § 301 was unavailable at disposition; mother forfeited § 360(b) argument by not asking trial court to exercise it; even if considered, court reasonably declined informal supervision
Ordering Mother to participate in services (§ 362)	Court may impose reasonable orders to remediate conditions leading to jurisdiction; services tailored to domestic violence and substance concerns	No basis to order compulsory services absent a finding mother would not voluntarily participate; invasion of privacy	Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion ordering domestic-violence support group, counseling, and conditional substance testing; no requirement to find recalcitrance before ordering services

Key Cases Cited

In re J.K., 174 Cal.App.4th 1426 (substantial-evidence standard for jurisdiction/disposition review)
In re Alexis E., 171 Cal.App.4th 438 (juvenile-court jurisdiction may be sustained on any one supported ground alleged in petition)
In re T.V., 217 Cal.App.4th 126 (exposure to recurring domestic violence can support jurisdiction under § 300(b))
In re Heather A., 52 Cal.App.4th 183 (ongoing domestic violence in child’s presence supports § 300(b)(1) jurisdiction)
In re Daisy H., 192 Cal.App.4th 713 (physical parental violence supports § 300(b)(1) where likely to continue and places child at risk)
In re N.M., 197 Cal.App.4th 159 (decision whether to use § 360(b) to avoid adjudication is discretionary for juvenile court)