In re I.O. CA2/8, B312673

Background

In Oct. 2020 DCFS filed a Welfare & Institutions Code §300 petition on behalf of infant I.O. (≈5 months), alleging domestic violence between the parents and Mother’s methamphetamine use; petition invoked subdivisions (a), (b)(1) and (j).
The petition recited an incident where Father allegedly assaulted Mother, causing I.O.’s bassinet to fall (no reported injury), and reported prior domestic violence and threats; parents denied physical violence.
Mother tested positive for methamphetamine/amphetamine, missed follow-up tests, and witnesses reported she appeared under the influence; Father is a former meth user who acknowledged awareness of Mother’s past drug use.
The juvenile court found I.O. a dependent under §300(a) (risk of serious physical harm from nonaccidental conduct) and §300(b)(1) (failure to protect), as to Father, removed the child, and ordered reunification services for Father including individual counseling and a separate domestic violence program.
Father appealed the jurisdictional findings as to him and the dispositional requirement to attend domestic violence classes.
The Court of Appeal affirmed: it found the appeal justiciable, held substantial evidence supported jurisdiction under both §300(a) and §300(b)(1), and that the domestic violence program order was not an abuse of discretion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Father’s appeal of jurisdiction is justiciable	Father’s findings underlie dispositional orders he challenges, so merits review	Generally nonjusticiable where other parent’s findings suffice to sustain jurisdiction	Justiciable because the domestic-violence finding supported the dispositional requirement Father appealed
Sufficiency of evidence for §300(a) jurisdiction (domestic violence)	Hearsay in the social study and reports of the bassinet incident and other domestic-violence allegations show substantial risk to child	Evidence is uncorroborated hearsay and an isolated incident; insufficient to support §300(a)	Affirmed: substantial evidence supports §300(a); hearsay in the social study was admissible (no timely objection) and the bassinet incident could show nonaccidental risk
Sufficiency of evidence for §300(b)(1) jurisdiction (failure to protect from Mother’s drug use)	Mother tested positive and appeared impaired; Father knew of her history and was a former user, so he should have protected the infant	Father claims he did not know or could not have known Mother was using	Affirmed: substantial evidence Father knew or should have known and failed to protect an infant from the risk posed by Mother’s substance abuse
Whether ordering Father to attend a separate domestic violence program was an abuse of discretion	The requirement is reasonably tailored to eliminate conditions that led to dependency (domestic violence)	The order was unnecessary or excessive	No abuse of discretion: court reasonably fashioned reunification services to address domestic violence and protect the child

Key Cases Cited

In re Briana V., 236 Cal.App.4th 297 (2015) (discusses justiciability of single-parent jurisdictional challenges and relation to dispositional orders)
In re Drake M., 211 Cal.App.4th 754 (2012) (factors for exercising discretion to decide a single parent’s appeal)
In re R.T., 3 Cal.5th 622 (2017) (standard of review for jurisdictional findings: substantial evidence, draw inferences to support trial court)
In re Cole L., 70 Cal.App.5th 591 (2021) (single-incident domestic violence can support §300(a) where child present and risk shown)
In re M.M., 240 Cal.App.4th 703 (2015) (physical altercation with child nearby can establish risk under §300(a))
Kevin R. v. Superior Court, 191 Cal.App.4th 676 (2010) (uncorroborated hearsay generally insufficient absent waiver of objection)
In re Lucero L., 22 Cal.4th 1227 (2000) (hearsay admissibility principles in dependency proceedings)
In re Corrine W., 45 Cal.4th 522 (2009) (appellate review of dispositional orders and court’s broad discretion to fashion reunification services)