In re Vanessa v. CA2/7, B252523

Referral alleging physical and emotional abuse and general neglect of Miriam H.'s four children; Alejandro had a longstanding relationship with Miriam and resided in the family home, creating ongoing risk to the children.
Alejandro abused Miriam publicly in the presence of the children and exposed Vanessa to sexualized conduct; Miriam failed to adequately protect the children and continued the relationship.
Prior Department referrals existed (nine from 2002–2012) with mixed outcomes; past voluntary family maintenance had occurred but failed to resolve current risks.
Detention and removal of Vanessa, Ver, Val, and J. to protective custody occurred in February 2013 due to substantial risk of harm; petition under Welf. & Inst. Code, §300, subds. (a), (b), (d), and (j) was filed.
By May–October 2013, paternity testing established Alejandro as J.'s biological father; the court held Raul to be J.'s presumed father for disposition, but found ongoing risk due to Miriam and Raul's lack of protection and Alejandro's ongoing conduct; Vanessa was found sexually abused under §300, subd. (d), and siblings under §300, subd. (j).
The disposition ordered removal with reunification services and supervised visitation; Miriam appeals, but the disposition/visitation issues are moot because the children have been returned to Miriam and Raul under supervision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Vanessa is within §300(d) due to sexual abuse risk.	Sufficient evidence shows Vanessa was sexually abused by Alejandro.	Evidence does not establish Vanessa was sexually abused within §11165.1 definitions.	Yes; substantial evidence supports §300(d) finding.
Whether Ver., Val., and J. are within §300(j) based on a sibling's abuse.	Vanessa's abuse and Miriam's failure to protect create substantial risk to siblings under §300(j).	Siblings' risk not adequately shown under §300(j).	Yes; §300(j) supported as to Ver., Val., and J.
Whether Miriam's challenges to disposition and visitation are moot.			Moot; disposition/visitation moot since children were returned under supervision.

In re J.K., 174 Cal.App.4th 1426 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (supports §300(d) and the risk framework for abuse referrals; safeguards need not hinge on single incident)
In re I.J., 56 Cal.4th 766 (Cal. 2013) (limits jurisdiction to one supported ground but allows §300(j) broad consideration of totality of circumstances)
In re R.C., 210 Cal.App.4th 930 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (domestic violence witnessed by children can support §300(b) and protective duties)
In re Carlos T., 174 Cal.App.4th 795 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (sexual abuse defined under §11165.1 includes exposure to porn and coercive sexual conduct; no touching required)
In re Nolan W., 45 Cal.4th 1217 (Cal. 2009) (dependency proceedings remedial, not punitive; focus on protection of child; reunification as goal)