L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. C.M. (In re A.M.)
249 Cal. Rptr. 3d 817
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2019Background
- Minor (born Nov. 2005) alleged repeated sexual abuse by her father (Al.M.) beginning when she was an infant and continuing through Feb. 2018; allegations included rubbing of penis against her, digital contact over clothing, and an attempted intrusion.
- Prior substantiated 2009 allegation led to police investigation but no criminal charges; father continued to have overnight contact at times.
- In April 2018 minor disclosed further abuse; mother reported it and the Department filed a section 300 petition alleging sexual abuse by father and mother’s failure to protect.
- Juvenile court found minor credible, sustained the petition (Welf. & Inst. Code § 300 subdivisions (b), (d), (j)), denied reunification services to father, and ordered sex‑abuse counseling and individual therapy for him.
- The court issued a two‑year restraining order under Welf. & Inst. Code § 213.5 prohibiting any direct or indirect contact between father and minor; father appealed that contact prohibition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by ordering a complete no‑contact restraining order under § 213.5 | Restraining order necessary to protect minor’s safety and best interests | Father argued order lacked substantial evidence; minor’s resilience and non‑severe abuse meant contact could be permitted | Court affirmed: substantial evidence father’s grooming/denials risked emotional and physical harm, so no‑contact order was justified |
| Whether dependency visitation and reunification principles required some contact | N/A (court focused on safety under dependency) | Father argued dependency presumption favors visitation/reunification and that non‑severe abuse should not bar contact | Court rejected: issue was restraining order safety, not reunification entitlement; father not entitled to reunification because mother had custody |
| Whether father’s conduct qualified as "severe sexual abuse" under § 361.5(b)(6) (affecting reunification) | N/A below; father raised severity on appeal | Father contended abuse was not severe so stricter restrictions unwarranted | Court treated argument as waived (not raised below) and noted evidence of digital manipulation/penetration supports severity if considered |
| Whether indirect contact (texts, calls, electronic) should be prohibited | N/A | Father argued such contact was unnecessary to restrict | Court held evidence supported prohibition of indirect contact due to risk of manipulation and jeopardy to minor’s safety |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Carlos H., 5 Cal.App.5th 861 (2016) (standard of review: abuse of discretion for restraining orders; factual findings upheld if supported by substantial evidence)
- In re C.Q., 219 Cal.App.4th 355 (2013) (juvenile court may enjoin contact under § 213.5 if contact would jeopardize child’s safety)
- In re B.S., 172 Cal.App.4th 183 (2009) (analogizing § 213.5 to Family Code protective‑order principles)
- In re Cheryl H., 153 Cal.App.3d 1098 (1984) (dependency proceedings are guided by child’s best interests and protection)
- People v. Brown, 8 Cal.4th 746 (1994) (noting limits on precedential reliance; cited regarding scope of Cheryl H.)
- In re Pedro Z., 190 Cal.App.4th 12 (2010) (parent not entitled to reunification services when custodial parent retains physical custody)
- Hepner v. Franchise Tax Bd., 52 Cal.App.4th 1475 (1997) (issues not raised below are waived on appeal)