L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. Pedro M. (In re Bruno M.)
239 Cal. Rptr. 3d 635
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Parents: mother (Evelyn S.), father (Pedro M.), children Bruno (b.2011) and Allison (b.2015). Department intervened after reported domestic violence in August 2017.
- Father had a long history (since ~2010) of repeated, escalating domestic violence against mother—punching, choking (once causing unconsciousness), bruising, broken glasses, threats to kill, and property damage; prior criminal conviction and protective order.
- Multiple incidents occurred in the children’s presence; Bruno expressed fear, mimicked aggression, and reported witnessing assaults; Allison covered her ears during incidents.
- Department filed a dependency petition (Welf. & Inst. Code § 300) and children were detained from father and released to mother with monitored visitation for father.
- Juvenile court sustained dependency, ordered reunification services, and issued a three-year permanent restraining order under Cal. Penal Code § 213.5(a) protecting mother and the children; father appealed only the inclusion of the children in the protective order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (Respondent/Minors) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supported including the children as protected persons in the permanent restraining order under § 213.5(a) | The children were never "in the line of fire" or directly harmed; father was not aggressive toward the children | Children’s emotional/mental peace was disturbed by repeated, severe domestic violence witnessed by them; father’s violence and threats put children at risk | Affirmed: substantial evidence supported including the children as protected persons |
| Whether physical injury to the children is required to issue a § 213.5 protective order | Physical harm to children required to justify protection | Statute permits protection for conduct that "disturbs the peace" of the child; physical injury not required | Physical injury not required; disturbing the child’s peace suffices |
| Applicability of precedent C.Q. to bar protection here | C.Q. is nearly identical and barred inclusion because children were not fearful and incidents were less severe | C.Q. is distinguishable: far more frequent, severe violence here, younger and more vulnerable children, and repeated reconciliations | C.Q. distinguished; court relied on facts showing greater severity and risk |
| Relevance of prior cases (e.g., B.S.) that involved actual risk of physical harm | Father relied on narrower readings requiring physical danger | Court explained B.S. did not require actual physical injury and later statutory language broadened enjoinable conduct to include "disturbing the peace" | Court affirmed broader reading: repeated violence and disturbance of peace justify protection |
Key Cases Cited
- In re B.S., 172 Cal.App.4th 183 (2009) (juvenile court may enjoin where parent’s violent tendencies and lack of impulse control place child at risk)
- In re C.Q., 219 Cal.App.4th 355 (2013) (distinguished; protective order not warranted where limited, less severe incidents and children not fearful)
- In re Cassandra B., 125 Cal.App.4th 199 (2004) (standard of review: substantial evidence supports restraining order if reasonable inferences support the juvenile court’s determination)
- Perez v. Torres-Hernandez, 1 Cal.App.5th 389 (2016) ("disturbing the peace" defined as conduct destroying the mental or emotional calm of the protected person)
- In re Brittany K., 127 Cal.App.4th 1497 (2005) (appellate review of juvenile court’s factual findings for substantial evidence and restraint order for abuse of discretion)