In re Sophia B. CA2/5
B308613
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 22, 2021Background
- DCFS received referrals in Sept 2019 after daughter (born 2008) reported frequent yelling, name-calling ("stupid," "ugly," "worthless"), anxiety attacks, and fear of father; daughter recounted recurring nightmares and thoughts that "everything would be better if I wasn't there."
- School therapist opined father emotionally abused daughter; daughter described panic/anxiety, thoughts of self‑harm in dreams, and fear of visiting father; son corroborated father’s short temper but denied physical abuse.
- Father repeatedly denied mistreatment, minimized the problem, and initially refused to acknowledge his role or consent to counseling for daughter; he later completed parenting classes and allowed monitored visits.
- DCFS filed a §300 petition alleging risk of physical and emotional harm; the juvenile court dismissed the (c) and (j) counts but sustained jurisdiction under §300(b)(1) (risk of serious physical harm) based on ongoing emotional abuse causing suicidal ideation, removed daughter from father’s custody, placed her with mother, ordered monitored visits, and required individual counseling for father.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed: substantial evidence supported jurisdiction under §300(b)(1) and removal to protect daughter from the risk of self‑harm tied to father’s conduct. Justice Baker dissented, concluding the record showed emotional harm but not a substantial risk of serious physical harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for jurisdiction under §300(b)(1) (risk of serious physical harm) | Daughter’s ongoing emotional abuse by father produced suicidal ideation and anxiety; risk of self‑harm establishes danger under (b)(1) | Father denied abuse, challenged credibility and argued statements show transient conflict or high expectations, not ongoing abuse creating physical risk | Affirmed — substantial evidence that father’s verbal/emotional abuse caused daughter’s suicidal ideation and created a substantial risk of serious physical harm (including self‑harm) under §300(b)(1) |
| Removal from father’s custody under §361(c) | Removal was necessary because daughter’s suicidal ideation stemmed from father’s conduct and she improved only after removal; no adequate in‑home protective measures existed | Father argued no physical abuse occurred and less restrictive alternatives (strict supervision, in‑home services, monitored visits) could protect child | Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supported removal because returning daughter before meaningful parental change would pose a substantial danger to her physical/emotional well‑being |
| Court‑ordered individual counseling for father | Father’s lack of acknowledgment of his role warranted court‑ordered services to ensure child’s safety and family progress | Father objected to mandatory individual counseling | Affirmed — court reasonably ordered counseling as part of dispositional services given father’s failure to accept responsibility and need for change |
Key Cases Cited
- In re L.W., 32 Cal.App.5th 840 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (elements required for jurisdiction under §300(b)(1))
- In re Drake M., 211 Cal.App.4th 754 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (substantial‑evidence standard on juvenile court findings)
- Conservatorship of O.B., 9 Cal.5th 989 (Cal. 2020) (standard for appellate review where finding requires clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Brison C., 81 Cal.App.4th 1373 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (contrast case where court declined jurisdiction under related theory)
- In re J.S., 228 Cal.App.4th 1483 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (jurisdictional findings as prima facie evidence supporting removal)