Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Jesus M.
235 Cal. App. 4th 104
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Parents separated; mother had sole custody and a permanent family-law restraining order (2013) against father for harassment and proximity violations. Father retained court-ordered visitation.
- DCFS received a referral alleging children were sometimes unsupervised; investigation revealed past domestic violence (2005, 2010) between parents, father’s repeated violations of the restraining order in 2013, and father denigrating mother to the children.
- Children showed no signs of physical abuse; therapists reported emotional distress and regression, and said children felt uncomfortable around father; children gave mixed statements about wanting visits.
- DCFS filed a section 300 petition alleging subdivision (a) and (b) grounds (serious physical harm / failure to protect), relying on historical domestic violence and recent restraining-order violations; subdivision (c) (serious emotional damage) was not pled.
- Juvenile court sustained the subdivision (b) allegations, expressly finding the children suffered emotional (not physical) injury from father’s restraining-order violations and denigration of mother, then detained the children from father, limited his visitation, and issued a custody order.
- Father appealed, arguing there was insufficient substantial evidence of a current substantial risk of serious physical harm to support jurisdiction under section 300(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supported jurisdiction under Welf. & Inst. Code §300(b) | DCFS/respondent: historical domestic violence plus father’s repeated restraining-order violations and harassment created a substantial risk of physical harm to the children | Father: evidence showed emotional harm only; no current risk of serious physical harm or likelihood of recurrence to children | Reversed: subdivision (b) jurisdiction unsupported because evidence showed emotional — not physical — injury and no substantial risk of serious physical harm |
| Whether court could rely on past domestic violence to justify §300(b) jurisdiction | Respondent: past domestic violence in the household can establish failure to protect | Father: court expressly found past violence was not the basis; current conduct was harassment/denigration | Court limited to evidence the juvenile court actually relied on; it found past violence was historical and the basis for jurisdiction was father’s recent conduct, which did not show risk of physical harm |
| Whether dependency could be sustained under §300(c) for emotional harm (though not pled) | Respondent: emotional harm was present and could support juvenile intervention | Father: subdivision (c) was not alleged, and required proof of severe emotional damage meeting statutory criteria | Court noted subdivision (c) was not pled, no findings made, and respondent did not seek remand to allege/prove it; therefore it could not substitute (c) for (b) on appeal |
| Whether dispositional and custody orders must be reversed if jurisdiction is reversed | Respondent: remedial orders appropriate once court exercised jurisdiction | Father: absent valid jurisdiction, court lacked authority to issue dispositional/custody orders | Held: reversal of jurisdiction required reversal of dispositional and custody orders that flowed from invalid jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.G., 220 Cal.App.4th 675 (discusses elements required for §300(b) jurisdiction)
- In re Alysha S., 51 Cal.App.4th 393 (emphasizes subdivision (b) requires substantial risk of serious physical harm)
- In re Daisy H., 192 Cal.App.4th 713 (analyzes limits of subdivision (c) for emotional harm)
- In re Heather A., 52 Cal.App.4th 183 (stands for proposition that domestic violence in the home can support failure-to-protect theory where children face risk of physical harm)
- In re Noe F., 213 Cal.App.4th 358 (clarifies appellate review is limited to the grounds the juvenile court actually relied on)
- In re Precious D., 189 Cal.App.4th 1251 (explains that dispositional and custody orders must be vacated if underlying jurisdiction is reversed)