219 Cal.App.4th 355
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- In a dependency case, the juvenile court issued a permanent restraining order prohibiting G.Q. from contacting A.R. and the three minor daughters except during monitored visitation.
- July 11, 2012 incident: Father allegedly assaulted Mother in the home in the presence of Ja.Q. (12) and other daughters, prompting DCFS involvement.
- Social workers interviewed the family; some children minimized or denied witnessing abuse, while a neighbor and J.H. reported ongoing parental conflict and bruising.
- DCFS filed a dependency petition on July 19, 2012 alleging domestic violence in the children’s presence and an incident with an adult son; the court detained and released the children to Mother with a temporary restraining order for Mother and the children as protected.
- The court ordered Father to have monitored visitation and required participation in parenting, counseling, and a 52-week domestic violence program.
- At the September 25, 2012 hearing, the court issued a permanent restraining order including the three children as protected persons, which the Father challenged as unsupported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the children were properly named as protected persons | Father: insufficient evidence to include the children. | Father: no substantive challenge beyond protection of Mother; children at risk. | Reversed; children not properly included as protected persons. |
| Standard for restraining orders under section 213.5 | Court should follow 213.5 to protect children when at risk. | No clear jeopardy to child safety without fear of future abuse. | California appellate review applied; order vacated as to children. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re B.S., 172 Cal.App.4th 183 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (order under 213.5 may be warranted if failure to issue jeopardizes safety; no prior molestation needed)
- In re Cassandra B., 125 Cal.App.4th 199 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (review standard; protective order may be affirmed on substantial evidence where risk to child exists)
- In re Brittany K., 127 Cal.App.4th 1497 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (grandparent visitation/monitoring context; proof of stalking/molestation can sustain a protective order)