In re Cole L.
70 Cal.App.5th 591
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2021Background
- On March 20, 2020 LAPD responded to a domestic disturbance at the children’s home; officers observed scratches/bruises on Ashley and Wesley, found the two children asleep and drowsy (later negative blood/urine tests), and reported possible child endangerment. No charges were ultimately filed.
- Department filed a dependency petition (Welf. & Inst. Code § 300) on March 30, 2020 alleging counts under subdivision (a) (nonaccidental serious physical harm) and (b)(1) (failure to protect) based on the March 20 incident and an asserted history of domestic violence between the parents.
- The children were initially detained from Wesley and released to Ashley (with conditions) and placed with the maternal grandmother; Ashley sought a restraining order against Wesley.
- The combined jurisdiction/disposition hearing was held January 6, 2021; the juvenile court sustained both §300(a) and §300(b)(1) counts, stating there was a “long history” of domestic violence between the parents and continuing Department supervision.
- On appeal, Ashley and Wesley argued the court relied on unalleged acts and that there was insufficient evidence the children were at substantial risk of serious physical harm at the time of the jurisdiction hearing; the Court of Appeal reversed, directing dismissal of the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §300(a) jurisdiction (nonaccidental infliction of serious physical harm) was supported by evidence | Dept: Parents’ domestic violence created risk of nonaccidental injury to children | Parents: No evidence any nonaccidental injury was inflicted on the children or that violence occurred in children’s presence | Reversed — no evidence violence occurred in children's presence or that children faced nonaccidental injury, so §300(a) unsupported |
| Whether §300(b)(1) jurisdiction (failure to protect / substantial risk) was supported by evidence of an ongoing history of domestic violence | Dept: Single March 20 incident plus purported long history and mother’s minimization/supporting statements show ongoing risk | Parents: The record contains only one physical incident (children asleep and absent), no proof of recurring domestic violence, and children lived safely with Ashley for nine months | Reversed — insufficient evidence that conduct was likely to recur or that parents had an established history of domestic violence linking past conduct to present risk |
| Whether juvenile court may rely on unalleged factual history in sustaining petition | Dept: Court may sustain on any ground supported by evidence; social worker’s report alleged history | Parents: Due process requires notice of allegations; the record lacked evidentiary support for an extended history | Reversed — court relied on an unproven “long history,” and appellate court will not make new factual findings in the first instance |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.T., 3 Cal.5th 622 (discusses meaning of "nonaccidental" for §300(a))
- In re I.J., 56 Cal.4th 766 (standard of review and evidentiary sufficiency in dependency proceedings)
- In re J.N., 62 Cal.App.5th 767 (need to show risk of harm exists at time of jurisdiction hearing)
- In re D.L., 22 Cal.App.5th 1142 (requirement that there be reason to believe alleged conduct will recur)
- In re Kadence P., 241 Cal.App.4th 1376 (court may consider past events but must show likelihood of recurrence)
- In re N.M., 197 Cal.App.4th 159 (past conduct probative only if it evidences current risk)
- In re I.C., 4 Cal.5th 869 (substantial evidence standard and limits on isolated proof)
- In re M.M., 240 Cal.App.4th 703 (examples where domestic violence supports §300(a) jurisdiction because child was directly endangered)