In re I.L. CA2/4, B309586

Children (ages 6, 5, and 4) witnessed multiple incidents of domestic violence by father against mother, including an attempted stabbing with a six‑inch serrated knife that caused a laceration and prompted the children to hide under a kitchen table.
A subsequent early‑morning incident involved father punching and kicking mother in the children’s presence; mother reported several other unreported incidents and obtained police intervention and an emergency protective order.
Mother obtained a TRO that named the children as protected persons; the Department filed a dependency petition under Welf. & Inst. Code § 300 alleging risk from father’s violence.
The juvenile court adjudicated the children dependent, removed them from father, placed them with mother under Department supervision, ordered services for father, and issued a § 213.5 restraining order listing mother and the three children as protected persons with only monitored visitation allowed.
Father appealed solely arguing the evidence was insufficient to include the children as protected persons; while the appeal was pending the court shortened the order’s duration from 2025 to 2023, mooting his separate duration argument.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the juvenile court erred by including the children as protected persons in a § 213.5 restraining order	Dept./mother: substantial evidence showed the children’s physical and emotional safety was jeopardized because they witnessed violent incidents, remain fearful, have nightmares, and father has a history of violence and poor impulse control	Father: inclusion was unnecessary because he never harmed or threatened the children, has had no contact with mother since she left, visitation is monitored, and C.Q. is analogous — children are not afraid and want visits	Affirmed: substantial evidence supported inclusion based on disturbance of the children’s peace and risk to their emotional and physical safety; monitored visitation is not inconsistent with a restraining order

In re C.Q., 219 Cal.App.4th 355 (reversed inclusion of children where children denied fear and desired visits)
In re N.L., 236 Cal.App.4th 1460 (discussing standards and compatibility of monitored visitation with restraining orders)
In re Bruno M., 28 Cal.App.5th 990 (upholding inclusion where children frequently witnessed violent incidents and showed fear—disturbing the child’s peace supports protection)
In re A.M., 37 Cal.App.5th 614 (emotional and psychological safety can justify prohibiting contact between parent and child)