Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. G.Q., 219 Cal. App. 4th 355

This dependency case involved a permanent restraining order issuing Father from Mother, the home, and the three minor daughters except during monitored visits.
DCFS did not recommend or participate in the restraining order decision below; no brief or appearance by DCFS on appeal.
On July 11, 2012 Mother reported a domestic violence incident by Father in the family home, witnessed by daughter Ja.Q. and others present.
Social workers conducted interviews with Mother and all four daughters; observations indicated mixed perceptions of violence and protection within the family.
The juvenile court granted a temporary restraining order and later a permanent restraining order naming Mother and the three minor daughters as protected persons; the court ordered monitored visitation for Father.
On remand, the court ordered the restraining order to exclude the children as protected persons, affirming other provisions of the order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the restraining order properly named the children as protected persons.	G.Q. argues there was insufficient evidence of risk to the children.	C.N. (Mother) argues evidence supported protection of the children.	The court held insufficient evidence to include the children as protected persons.
Whether the restraining order could be upheld for other targets while excluding the children.	The order was valid to protect the family’s general safety.	Protection of children was not shown to be necessary.	The portions shielding Father from Mother and home were upheld; the child protections were removed.
What standard governs review of an order under §213.5 for protecting a child.	Standard should be substantial evidence and abuse of discretion.	The order should be reviewed for sufficiency of evidence to protect the children.	Court applied substantial evidence and abuse of discretion framework but found lack of substantial evidence for child protection.

In re B.S., 172 Cal.App.4th 183 (Cal. App. 4th 2009) (no required showing of prior abuse; jeopardy to safety governs protective orders under §213.5)
In re Cassandra B., 125 Cal.App.4th 199 (Cal. App. 4th 2004) (protective orders may be affirmed where risk to child from parent is shown; substantial evidence standard applies)
In re Brittany K., 127 Cal.App.4th 1497 (Cal. App. 4th 2005) (grandparent’s conduct toward grandchildren can support a protective order under §213.5 when evidence shows stalking/molestation)