99 Cal.App.5th 638
Cal. Ct. App.2024Background
- Tori C. is the mother of Lilianna C., who was born with drugs in her system, resulting in a prior juvenile dependency case.
- After reunification and closure of that case, new allegations arose in 2022 that mother was abusing and neglecting Lilianna, including screaming, threats, and striking her.
- Lilianna was removed from mother’s custody and placed with her maternal aunt, uncle, and cousin, after the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services filed a new dependency petition.
- Mother made explicit threats to the maternal aunt and grandmother, prompting issuance of a temporary restraining order covering Lilianna and family members.
- After a contested hearing, the court issued a three-year restraining order that included Lilianna, her cousin, her aunt, her uncle, and her grandmother as protected persons.
- Mother appealed the scope and statutory basis for the restraining order.
Issues
| Issue | Tori C.’s Argument | DCFS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of Section 213.5 restraining order | Section 213.5 only permits restraining orders if the dependency petition is filed by a probation officer per its cross-reference to section 311. | The statute authorizes such orders for any dependency petition, regardless of who files it. | The cross-reference to section 311 is a drafting error; orders may issue in any dependency case. |
| Sufficiency of evidence to protect Lilianna | Insufficient evidence of danger to Lilianna to justify restraining order. | Ample evidence that mother disturbed Lilianna’s peace through abuse and threats. | Sufficient evidence supports protecting Lilianna; restraining order affirmed as to her. |
| Protection of maternal cousin | Maternal cousin not covered by statute; “child in the household” language does not apply. | Maternal cousin qualifies as “other child in the household” under section 213.5. | Statute covers children in the household; order affirmed as to cousin. |
| Protection of maternal grandmother | Grandmother not statutorily protected unless “caretaker” or “legal guardian.” | No specific argument; order included grandmother. | Order reversed as to grandmother; not covered under section 213.5. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Bruno M., 28 Cal.App.5th 990 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (defined “disturbing the peace” and standard for restraining orders in dependency cases)
- In re B.S., 172 Cal.App.4th 183 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (clarified evidentiary requirements for section 213.5).
- In re C.Q., 219 Cal.App.4th 355 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (addressed when children can be included as protected persons in dependency restraining orders).
- In re N.L., 236 Cal.App.4th 1460 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (discussed standards for including children in protective orders).