Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Jessica G.
242 Cal. App. 4th 634
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Mother (Jessica G.) admitted occasionally spanking her two young sons on the buttocks with her hand or a sandal; no bruises or marks were observed and the children described the spankings as not very painful.
- While DCFS investigated, the children’s stepfather (Guillermo) assaulted and raped mother in the children’s presence; the juvenile court sustained allegations against Guillermo for that misconduct.
- The Department also alleged mother had intentionally inflicted serious physical harm on J.M. by spanking, and sustained jurisdictional findings against mother based on repeated hitting with a shoe/sandal.
- The juvenile court ordered mother to attend parenting classes and individual counseling (in addition to domestic-violence-related services tied to Guillermo’s conduct).
- Mother appealed the jurisdictional finding against her; the majority reached the merits despite the unchallenged finding against Guillermo because the ruling affected dispositional orders and future proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Department’s / Dissent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether spanking with hand or sandal categorically constitutes "serious physical harm" under Welf. & Inst. Code § 300 (so as to permit dependency jurisdiction) | The juvenile court erred by finding such discipline is per se "serious physical harm"; mother contends reasonable parental discipline is exempt and court must apply that defense | Dependency courts may intervene before serious injury occurs; implementation (shoe v. hand) can be evidence of abuse and the court’s finding was supported by the record | Reversed as to mother and remanded. Court held § 300’s exception for "reasonable and age-appropriate spanking" applies across § 300 and juvenile courts must first assess whether discipline falls within the parental-discipline privilege (genuineness, necessity, reasonableness) rather than applying categorical rule. |
| Whether appellate court should decline to review mother’s challenge because an unchallenged jurisdictional finding against Guillermo suffices for dependency jurisdiction (mootness) | Mother argued review was warranted because the finding against her supported dispositional orders (parenting classes, counseling) and could affect future proceedings | Department argued the appeal was moot because dependency attaches to the child and an unassailable finding against Guillermo sustains jurisdiction; dissent emphasized broad discretion and that dispositional orders may be valid without reversing mother’s finding | Court exercised discretion to review because the finding against mother was prejudicial (it underpinned dispositional orders unrelated to Guillermo) and could affect future proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Whitehurst, 9 Cal. App. 4th 1045 (1992) (articulates parental-discipline privilege: disciplinary motive, reasonable occasion, reasonable degree)
- Gonzalez v. Santa Clara County Dept. of Social Services, 223 Cal. App. 4th 72 (2014) (parental right to reasonable discipline bars civil liability and certain adverse administrative determinations)
- In re Mariah T., 159 Cal. App. 4th 428 (2008) (jurisdiction upheld where belt blows caused deep bruises)
- In re David H., 165 Cal. App. 4th 1626 (2008) (jurisdiction upheld for repeated severe corporal punishment causing marks)
- In re N.M., 197 Cal. App. 4th 159 (2011) (dependency may be asserted before serious injury; severe corporal punishment and other abuses supported jurisdiction)
- In re Cole C., 174 Cal. App. 4th 900 (2009) (repeated harsh measures and threats supported jurisdiction)
- In re Joel H., 19 Cal. App. 4th 1185 (1993) (refusal to exercise jurisdiction where discipline was a single open-hand slap on buttocks)