In re M.J. CA1/3, A145629

Background

Minor (born ~1998) lived in Yemen until age 11, then moved to California with father; father arranged minor’s engagement/marriage in Yemen when she was 11 and paid a partial dowry.
From about age 11 and increasingly at 15–17, minor experienced severe anxiety, sleep/appetite disturbance and suicidal ideation tied to fear her father would force her to return to Yemen and marry the arranged husband.
Minor ran from home in August 2014 and was sheltered by acquaintances; father reported her missing and pursued her; police later placed minor in protective custody in March 2015 when she refused to return to father.
Clinicians and social workers observed acute anxiety, situational suicidal ideation, and trauma responses; one clinician diagnosed major depressive disorder and assessed emotional abuse.
Juvenile court sustained Welf. & Inst. Code §300 petition (subds. (b) and (g)) and, after a contested hearing, removed minor from father’s custody under §361(c), ordering placement and reunification services; father appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Agency/Respondent)	Defendant's Argument (Father)	Held
1. Jurisdiction under §300 (esp. subd. (b)) — emotional harm/risk of harm	Minor’s testimony plus clinicians/social workers provided substantial evidence that father’s threats to force marriage caused severe anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation	Insufficient evidence father caused emotional harm; minor not credible; father never physically abused her	Affirmed: substantial evidence supports jurisdiction under §300(b) (emotional abuse/risk)
2. Jurisdiction under §300(g) — left without provision for support	Agency alleged removal/placement necessary; minor unwilling to return and effectively left without adequate support	Father argued minor could not legally be sent to Yemen (expired passport) and agency’s case speculative	Court did not need to rely on §300(g) because §300(b) sufficed; overall jurisdiction affirmed
3. Disposition/removal under §361(c) — necessity of removal	Clear and convincing evidence that return would pose substantial danger to minor’s emotional and physical well‑being (situational suicidal ideation), and no reasonable alternatives	Removal improper absent imminent physical harm; removal was culturally prejudicial and unnecessary given minor’s proximity to age 18	Affirmed: removal justified under §361(c)(1) and alternatively under §361(c)(3) (severe emotional damage)
4. Request for judicial notice procedural compliance	Agency opposed; court rejected father’s belated, noncompliant request	Father sought judicial notice of unspecified materials	Denied for failure to comply with Cal. Rules of Court

Key Cases Cited

People v. Hovarter, 44 Cal.4th 983 (2008) (credibility determinations are for the trial court)
In re Ricardo L., 109 Cal.App.4th 552 (2003) (past conduct probative but must show present risk under §300)
In re N.M., 197 Cal.App.4th 159 (2011) (standard of review and agency burden at jurisdictional hearing)
In re Alexis E., 171 Cal.App.4th 438 (2009) (single competent witness can support jurisdiction)
In re Ashley B., 202 Cal.App.4th 968 (2011) (appellate court may affirm on any ground supported by record)
In re H.E., 169 Cal.App.4th 710 (2008) (§361 removal can be based on risk to emotional or physical well‑being)
In re Marilyn H., 5 Cal.4th 295 (1993) (construction of removal standards under former §361)
In re K.S., 244 Cal.App.4th 327 (2016) (affirming removal where child suffered or was at risk of severe emotional damage)
In re Terrance B., 144 Cal.App.4th 965 (2006) (review focuses on correctness of ruling, not trial court reasoning)
In re Alexis H., 132 Cal.App.4th 11 (2005) (dependency proceedings protect the child’s interests rather than punish parents)