In re William M. CA2/7
B307619
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 30, 2021Background:
- Father William M. was alleged to have used ongoing, escalating physical discipline against his sons: 15-year-old William II and 9-year-old Levi (belts, striking, choking, throwing, bruising).
- Two nearly identical juvenile section 300 petitions were filed by DCFS; both children were detained from William; William II was released to his mother T.Q., Levi to his stepmother Sylvia.
- At the contested jurisdiction hearing William II testified to repeated abuse spanning years; William largely denied wrongdoing and insisted physical discipline was appropriate.
- The juvenile court sustained amended petitions finding excessive, inappropriate physical discipline and found the children were at substantial risk; it removed both children from William’s custody and ordered services/monitored visitation.
- At a later review the court terminated dependency over William II and issued a custody order granting T.Q. sole legal and physical custody and monitored visitation to William; while the appeals were pending the court also terminated jurisdiction over Levi (no appeal from that termination).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCFS/Respondent) | Defendant's Argument (William) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removal of William II from father’s custody was supported by clear and convincing evidence of substantial risk and lack of reasonable alternatives | Sustained findings of a long pattern of escalating physical abuse, father’s denial and refusal of services, and that counseling/insight was needed before reunification; no less-restrictive means would protect the child | Removal was unnecessary because father would comply with orders and was analogous to cases where single incidents or demonstrated remorse made removal unwarranted | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports removal under the clear-and-convincing standard given persistent abuse, escalation, and father’s lack of insight or prior refusal of services |
| Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by awarding sole legal custody to T.Q. when terminating jurisdiction over William II | Given the dependency facts (child’s fear, restraining order, parental conflict), shared legal custody was not in child’s best interests | Court should have ordered joint legal custody because parents had previously cooperated and nothing precluded cooperation | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion in awarding sole legal custody based on child’s safety and changed circumstances |
| Whether William’s appeal of Levi’s removal remains justiciable | DCFS points out juvenile court later terminated jurisdiction over Levi, so no effective relief can be granted on appeal of removal | William contends removal was erroneous and challenges disposition | Dismissed as moot: termination of jurisdiction over Levi makes the appeal non-justiciable because appellate relief would be meaningless |
Key Cases Cited
- Conservatorship of O.B., 9 Cal.5th 989 (controls substantial-evidence review under clear-and-convincing standard)
- In re A.E., 228 Cal.App.4th 820 (reversal of removal where abuse was isolated and father showed remorse/insight)
- In re Hailey T., 212 Cal.App.4th 139 (reversed removal and emphasized consideration of less-restrictive alternatives and parents’ engagement in services)
- In re T.V., 217 Cal.App.4th 126 (discusses removal standard focused on averting harm rather than past injury alone)
- In re John W., 41 Cal.App.4th 961 (juvenile court custody determinations governed by child’s best interests in dependency context)
- In re Rashad D., 63 Cal.App.5th 156 (appeals challenging disposition become moot when juvenile court later terminates jurisdiction)
- In re E.E., 49 Cal.App.5th 195 (trial court best positioned to assess child risk on the facts presented)