In re M.C. CA2/4, B308704

Background

Eleven-year-old M. was detained after alleging repeated physical abuse by his father (belt strikes, choking, punching, hitting with a hanger) and being chased with a knife; medical exam showed fading bruises. Father has a prior conviction for inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant.
M. reported father drinks Hennessy often and becomes aggressive when intoxicated; M. and others described domestic violence between father and his companion I.V., including injuries to I.V. witnessed by children.
DCFS filed a section 300 petition alleging (among other things) physical abuse, domestic violence exposure, father’s alcohol abuse, and drug exposure in the home; some counts were later amended.
The juvenile court sustained counts for physical abuse (not appealed), domestic violence with I.V. (b-2), and alcohol abuse as limiting father’s ability to parent (b-3, sustained as amended).
Disposition ordered monitored visitation, random drug and alcohol testing, parenting classes, conjoint counseling, and individual counseling addressing domestic violence and substance use; father appealed the jurisdictional findings on b-2 and b-3 and the disposition testing/counseling orders.
The Court of Appeal affirmed: it exercised discretion to hear the appeal and found substantial evidence supported the sustained counts and no abuse of discretion in the disposition orders.

Issues

Issue	DCFS' Argument	Father’s Argument	Held
Jurisdiction — alcohol abuse (b-3)	M’s testimony identified brand, frequency, behavioral change when drinking, and linkage to violent incidents; this showed substance use created a substantial risk.	Evidence was limited to child’s statements; other adults contradicted; father had negative on-demand test and steady employment.	Substantial evidence supported b-3 as amended (alcohol limits father’s ability to care) — child’s testimony and nexus to violent episodes sufficient.
Jurisdiction — domestic violence with I.V. (b-2)	Long history of violence, children’s observations, injuries, prior arrests/conviction, and inconsistencies about living arrangements showed ongoing risk.	Past incidents; nearly completed a 52-week program; restraining order in place and parties said they were separated — no present risk.	Substantial evidence supported b-2 — past violent conduct, children’s exposure, and continued indicia of risk made recurrence likely.
Disposition — drug/alcohol testing & counseling	Orders were tailored to eliminate conditions that led to jurisdiction and were within court’s broad discretion.	Orders were duplicative, burdensome, unnecessary given father’s program progress and lack of corroborative substance-abuse proof.	No abuse of discretion; testing and individualized counseling were reasonably calculated to address sustained bases for jurisdiction.
Preservation / Mootness	N/A	DCFS argued appeal could be moot because an uncontested ground (physical abuse) supports jurisdiction; father asked merits be reached.	Court exercised discretion to hear appeal (findings affected disposition and future custody). Father forfeited challenge to individual counseling for failure to object below.

Key Cases Cited

In re Alexis E., 171 Cal.App.4th 438 (reviewing court may affirm jurisdiction if any sustained ground is supported by substantial evidence)
In re Drake M., 211 Cal.App.4th 754 (substance use requires causal link to risk of physical harm to child)
In re R.T., 3 Cal.5th 622 (standard of review for jurisdictional findings — substantial evidence and credibility are for trial court)
In re Rebecca C., 228 Cal.App.4th 720 (insufficient evidence of risk from parent’s substance abuse absent nexus to child harm)
In re R.C., 210 Cal.App.4th 930 (past domestic violence can predict future violence and support jurisdiction)
In re Daisy H., 192 Cal.App.4th 713 (single, remote incident of domestic violence without evidence of ongoing risk insufficient)
In re D.P., 44 Cal.App.5th 1058 (juvenile court’s broad discretion in disposition; best interests and tailoring services)
In re Anthony Q., 5 Cal.App.5th 336 (forfeiture doctrine applies to failure to object to disposition orders)
In re Jasmin C., 106 Cal.App.4th 177 (court may not order services for a nonoffending parent absent showing of benefit)