In re S.D. CA2/8, B308007

Parents (Mother and Father) had a documented, recurring history of domestic violence in the children’s presence, including incidents on April 3, 14, and 15, 2020; children were reported present and sometimes left unattended.
There were 14 law‑enforcement calls about domestic violence at the home over two years; neighbors and a child (A.T.) reported witnessing physical assaults and seeing bruises on Mother.
Father has a criminal history including a 2012 conviction for inflicting corporal injury on a spouse and registered controlled‑substance offender status; DCFS verified missed drug tests by Father.
DCFS filed a Welf. & Inst. Code § 300 petition (May 13, 2020); the juvenile court detained the children and later sustained counts under §§ 300(a) and (b).
The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that returning the children to either parent posed a substantial risk and ordered removal from both parents, issued a one‑year restraining order protecting Mother, and granted reunification services.
Father appealed the removal from Mother’s custody, arguing insufficient evidence because parents had separated, were participating in services, had obeyed restraining orders, and no new incidents occurred in the prior four months.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether substantial evidence supports removal of the children from Mother’s custody under Welf. & Inst. Code § 361(c)	DCFS: history of repeated domestic violence in children’s presence, recent incidents, Father’s criminal history, Mother minimized allegations and failed to protect children, no reasonable means short of removal	Father: parents had complied with restraining order, were engaged in services, no incidents for four months, children wanted to return	Affirmed. Substantial evidence supports removal: ongoing DV history, Mother’s minimization and inability to protect, supervisory alternatives insufficient; clear and convincing standard satisfied

Conservatorship of O.B., 9 Cal.5th 989 (2020) (articulates appellate review standard for findings made by clear and convincing evidence)
In re V.L., 54 Cal.App.5th 147 (2020) (removal orders affirmed on substantial evidence review)
In re David C., 152 Cal.App.3d 1189 (1984) (clear and convincing requires high probability)
In re N.M., 197 Cal.App.4th 159 (2011) (removal may be preventive to avert harm)
In re Hailey T., 212 Cal.App.4th 139 (2012) (discusses less drastic alternatives to removal)
In re Gabriel K., 203 Cal.App.4th 188 (2012) (parental acknowledgement of problem is required for correction)
In re R.V., 208 Cal.App.4th 837 (2012) (parent has standing to challenge removal from the other parent)