In re Elian V. CA2/7, B308114

Mother had a prior dependency (2013) and convictions for domestic violence and assault with a deadly weapon; family court awarded Father primary physical custody and Mother monitored visitation.
Between 2018 and 2020 multiple referrals alleged stepmother Jessica sexually and physically abused seven‑year‑old Elian; many referrals were found unfounded, inconclusive, or evaluated out after Elian gave inconsistent statements.
Department alleged Mother coached Elian to make false allegations, repeatedly subjected him to interviews and medical exams (including genital/anal checks), and demanded removal from Father’s home.
Elian and therapists reported anxiety, sadness, tiredness, and reduced eating after visits with Mother; Elian told investigators Mother pressured him to lie and he preferred living with Father.
Juvenile court sustained a petition under Welf. & Inst. Code § 300(b)(1), removed Elian from Mother, placed him with Father, and entered a juvenile custody order giving Father sole legal and physical custody with monitored visitation for Mother.
On appeal the Court of Appeal reversed: it held there was not substantial evidence Mother’s conduct placed Elian at a substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness, and directed dismissal of the petition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Department)	Defendant's Argument (Mother)	Held
Whether there was substantial evidence to sustain jurisdiction under §300(b)(1) based on Mother’s alleged coaching and repeated interviews/exams	Mother’s conduct produced anxiety, refusal to eat, and subjected the child to invasive physical exams and repeated investigations, posing a substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness	Evidence shows at most emotional distress; emotional harm alone does not satisfy §300(b), and there is no proof of physical injury or substantial risk of such harm	Reversed — insufficient substantial evidence that Mother’s conduct created a substantial risk of serious physical harm under §300(b)(1)
Whether repeated interviews and medical exams (including genital/anal checks) established a present risk of serious physical harm	Physical exams and repeated invasive questioning expose the child to risk and support jurisdiction	No evidence the exams caused physical harm; exams showed no trauma; risk of physical harm not proven	Reversed — examinations did not show or establish a substantial risk of serious physical harm
Validity of disposition and custody orders issued after jurisdiction finding	Disposition and juvenile custody order follow from sustained jurisdiction and removal	Without valid jurisdiction, subsequent orders are void	Reversed — disposition and juvenile custody order vacated; petition dismissed

In re L.W., 32 Cal.App.5th 840 (2019) (describes §300(b) as authorizing jurisdiction where child suffered or is at substantial risk of serious physical harm due to parental inability to protect)
In re E.E., 49 Cal.App.5th 195 (2020) (explains §300(b) requires proof of parental conduct, causation, and serious physical harm or substantial risk)
In re Jesus M., 235 Cal.App.4th 104 (2015) (emotional harm alone does not support jurisdiction under §300(b))
In re Israel T., 30 Cal.App.5th 47 (2018) (reversed jurisdiction where alleged risk of physical harm was minimal or speculative)
In re Janet T., 93 Cal.App.4th 377 (2001) (parental mental/emotional issues without evidence of physical danger insufficient for §300(b) jurisdiction)
In re Christopher R., 225 Cal.App.4th 1210 (2014) (juvenile court may consider past events when assessing present need for protection)
In re I.J., 56 Cal.4th 766 (2013) (articulates standard of review for sufficiency of evidence in dependency proceedings)