In re Marilyn M.
BACKGROUND
The family includes Father, minors Marilyn and Matthew, now ages 10 and 6, respectively, and D.V. (Mother), who is not a party to this appeal. Father and Mother did not live together but shared joint legal and physical custody of the children.
Father and Mother had a history of domestic violence, and in October 2023 the juvenile court sustained a dependency petition alleging several instances of domestic violence that endangered Marilyn and Matthew, including that Father twice pulled Mother out of her vehicle and slammed her head against the door frame while one of the minors was in the backseat; Mother struck Father with a fist and scratched him while the children sat in the backseat; Father grabbed and yelled at Mother in the presence of one of the children; Father struck Mother while she held one of the children; and Father slapped, pushed and forcefully grabbed Mother and berated, demeaned and called her derogatory names in the presence of the children.
The court removed the children from Fathers’ custody, released them to Mother, and ordered Father to complete a 52-week domestic violence program, individual counseling, and parenting instruction. Although the record does not indicate whether Father participated in or completed any programs, he eventually reunified with the children, and the court terminated jurisdiction in August 2024, issuing a family law order granting Mother and Father joint legal and physical custody of the children.
A.V. reported to police and social workers that although she fought and kicked Father, he forcibly raped her in the front seat of his vehicle while the minors were asleep in the back.
Father admitted engaging in a sexual encounter with A.V. but claimed it was consensual. He admitted that she cried during the incident but reported that she told him she missed her boyfriend.
Father‘s sister, Katherine, reported that A.V. called her and said that Father had assaulted her. She advised A.V. to call 911.
No other evidence supported A.V.‘s reports: The children reported they heard and saw nothing during the ride home; Katherine did not believe that Father raped A.V.; DCFS presented no physical evidence of an assault; and the minors were healthy and well adjusted.
DCFS filed a
The court considered jurisdiction and placement on January 21, 2026. It rejected Father‘s claim that the encounter with A.V. was consensual, sustained DCFS‘s petition, and declared the children dependents.
The court found that Father posed a substantial danger to the minors’ physical and mental well-being, reasonable efforts had been made to prevent removal, and there were no reasonable means to protect the minors absent removal. The court granted Mother sole physical custody and the parents joint legal custody and ordered monitored visitation for Father. The court terminated jurisdiction with a family law order.
Father appealed.
In his opening brief on appeal, Father represents that he has not yet participated in the latest court ordered programs.
DISCUSSION
A. Legal Standard
Father contends the juvenile court asserted jurisdiction under an incorrect legal standard. We disagree.
We independently review whether the juvenile court applied the correct legal standard. (In re Anthony Q. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 336, 344.)
The court asserted jurisdiction under
Father argues that during the detention hearing, the court observed that Father‘s actions endangered the emotional health of the minors, which would support a finding only under
B. Jurisdictional Finding
Father argues the juvenile court‘s jurisdictional findings are unsupported by substantial evidence. We disagree.
Physical violence between a child‘s parent and another in the presence of a minor may support the exercise of jurisdiction under
We review a juvenile court‘s jurisdictional findings for substantial evidence. (In re E.B. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 568, 574–575, overruled on another ground by Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1010, fn. 7.) Substantial evidence is not synonymous with any evidence. (In re Savannah M. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1393 [a juvenile court‘s decision supported by a
Here, A.V. reported that while the minors slept in the backseat of Father‘s car, he sexually assaulted her in the front seat despite her fighting and kicking him. This evidence supported that Father‘s conduct physically endangered the minors.
Father argues the evidence was insubstantial because (1) A.V.‘s report was uncorroborated; (2) no physical evidence supported her version of events; (3) contravening evidence suggested Father‘s encounter with A.V. was consensual; (4) DCFS‘s investigation was inadequate; and (5) his “version of the incident is the more credible one.” Although these matters might have supported a different finding, they do not undermine the court‘s finding.
Father argues that no evidence supported that the sexual assault in the front seat of his vehicle endangered the children in the backseat. We disagree. A.V. reported that she fought and kicked Father during the assault. Because the cabin of a vehicle is a small, enclosed space, a reasonable factfinder could conclude that a fight occurring in the front seat endangers people in the back.
Father argues no evidence supports that he will engage in violence in the children‘s presence in the future because he “has taken this incident and its consequences very seriously.” On the contrary, the current incident, paired with Father‘s prior
C. Custody Order
Father argues that no substantial evidence supports removing the children from his custody because no evidence suggests he poses an ongoing danger to them. A court may remove a child from a parent‘s physical custody where it finds there is a “substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor if the minor were returned home, and there are no reasonable means by which the minor‘s physical health can be protected without removing the minor from the minor‘s parent‘s [or] guardian‘s . . . physical custody.” (
Here, Father engaged in sexual violence in the minors’ presence only a year after having regained custody that he lost as a result of domestic violence against Mother. The court could reasonably conclude from this fact alone that Father would pose a substantial danger to the children‘s physical or emotional well-being if they were returned to him, and there were no reasonable means by which they could be protected without removal. Father‘s failure to complete court ordered counseling underlines the danger.
The juvenile court‘s orders are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
ROTHSCHILD, P. J.
We concur:
BENDIX, J.
M. KIM, J.