In re Sebastian M. filed
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Prior child welfare case
Sebastian was declared a dependent of the juvenile court in 2018 after his two-month-old paternal half sibling, C.M., was “found to be suffering from a detrimental condition consisting of a complex branching skull fracture involving both sides of the skull and occipital bone, swelling and bleeding into [C.M.‘s] brain including a diffuse subcarotid hemorrhage, a left subdural hemorrhage, intraventricular hemorrhage in the third ventricle,
The juvenile court ultimately terminated jurisdiction over Sebastian, awarding mother sole physical custody and father monitored visits.
Current referral and investigation
In August 2025, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) received a referral regarding Sebastian. The police responded to an incident of domestic violence between mother and her boyfriend, Daniel H. Mother was intoxicated, belligerent, and uncooperative. She denied any physical violence had occurred. Daniel reported mother repeatedly punched him during the incident, and an officer observed sustained redness on the left side of Daniel‘s face and chest. Mother was arrested for domestic violence. Sebastian, who was sleeping in another room of the house, was taken into protective custody.
Mother identified father as Sebastian‘s parent. She said father was fully involved in the child‘s life and was a good father. She described father as loving and overprotective of the child. Father provided financial support. Mother denied a family law order was in place, stating they had tried their best to avoid
DCFS contacted father, who came, picked up Sebastian and brought him to father‘s home.
DCFS interviewed then-eight-year-old Sebastian. Sebastian had been told mother was arrested for “acting up,” however, the child did not know what she did. He stated he was asleep when the police arrived at the home. He did not know about mother punching anyone but said mother and Daniel argued a lot, which he did not like. Sebastian had observed mother and Daniel name-calling and hitting each other with objects. The child indicated these things did not happen at father‘s home.
Father said mother was a good mother, but she moved around. Father wanted Sebastian to have stability. Father said Sebastian had been in his care for about a year and a half, until about a month earlier when mother picked up the child and said she would keep him in her custody. Mother moved Sebastian to a school close to her. He was supposed to start school on August 14, 2025. Father reported Sebastian visited every weekend. Father was shocked about mother‘s arrest because he believed she was doing okay the last time he saw her. Father agreed the child should be placed in his home. Paternal grandmother would assist with the child‘s care.
Section 300 petition and initial proceedings
On August 6, 2025, DCFS filed a
A minute order from father‘s 2019 criminal proceedings indicated after pleading no contest to a child endangerment charge under
At the initial hearing on August 20, 2025, the juvenile court ordered Sebastian detained from mother and released to father under the supervision of DCFS.
Jurisdiction/disposition report
In its jurisdiction/disposition report filed in October 2025, DCFS reported Sebastian continued to live with father. Sebastian reported he liked living with father and felt good about the situation. When asked if he wanted to return to mother‘s care, Sebastian said, “I don‘t know, not really … .” (CT 77)~ Sebastian had observed Daniel push mother and felt scared. During the incident, he could not stop crying and was breathing heavily. He had previously observed Daniel push or hit mother on three occasions. When asked how he felt on these occasions, Sebastian said he felt “[s]cared and I felt like I wanted to punch him.” Sebastian observed mother drinking three beer bottles at a restaurant on August 4, 2025, and said she talked “different” and moved “kind of weird” afterward. Sebastian was scared when mother and Daniel drank beer because he thought they might have to go to the hospital.
Mother said she never had any issues with father‘s parenting. She said Sebastian “loves being at his dad‘s and being with his brothers. He has never come and told me anything negative about him.” Mother had a neutral relationship with father‘s wife, Jennifer H. (stepmother). Mother said stepmother “is a sweet girl and has been involved in Sebastian‘s life for a long time.” Mother denied there had been any amendments to the family law order previously issued by the juvenile court but said she had thought about formally allowing father shared custody of Sebastian.
Father said mother had a history of “partying and heavily drinking alcohol at such events.” Father had been told by mutual friends that mother would leave Sebastian with friends to “go party.” Mother would sometimes end her visits early and drop Sebastian at his home so she could “go party.” Each time mother began a new relationship, she would take Sebastian to live with her, but once the relationship ended, she would send the child to live with father. Father said Sebastian had become accustomed to the instability in his life. Father recently asked Sebastian if he made friends at school, and Sebastian responded, “I don‘t care about making friends, I‘m going to move again.” Father was heartbroken to hear that. Father wanted to get physical custody of Sebastian to put a stop to the instability and inconsistency Sebastian had experienced.
Father joined a fatherhood program in June 2025. Since his previous dependency case, father had been trying to “improve and be a better man and father to my children.” Father had been the primary financial provider for Sebastian, as mother lived an unstable life involving constant moving around and getting
Stepmother had been part of Sebastian‘s life since he was about 11 months old. Stepmother was concerned about the long-term effects of mother‘s situation on Sebastian. Stepmother and father had already sought therapeutic support for Sebastian and had an intake appointment scheduled for September 22, 2025. The family also had support from the USC Head Start program, which assisted in linking the family to services.
Stepmother reported Sebastian lived with father and would visit mother on weekends. However, there were times when mother would cancel her visits or end them early to go out with friends. There was a time when Sebastian did not have visits with mother for about a month, and during that time there was an incident at school when Sebastian uncharacteristically pulled a chain off a student. Stepmother said she and father sought support from a counselor to explain to Sebastian that what he did was not appropriate. Sebastian was receptive to the intervention and wrote a letter of apology to the other student.
Stepmother said her priority was to ensure Sebastian‘s well-being and for him to have a healthy relationship with mother. Stepmother acknowledged Sebastian needed mother, but she believed everyone involved needed time to work on their respective issues for the child‘s overall well-being.
Paternal grandmother said mother had never prioritized Sebastian‘s stability. She moved the child from place to place and exposed him to different people without concern for his safety. Paternal grandmother acknowledged mother became a mother at a very young age and did not have an appropriate maternal figure to model. However, paternal grandmother still
Based on the information gathered throughout the investigation, DCFS recommended “this family would benefit from Court supervision to ensure the safety of the child.” (Boldface omitted.) DCFS explained its “assessment that the family needs formal intervention to address the underlying needs that led to the family‘s involvement with [DCFS]. [Mother] needs to learn the importance of healthy relationships, the effects of a parent‘s alcohol consumption on a child, the importance of stability in a child‘s development, and the importance of a healthy co-parenting relationship.… Sebastian needs therapeutic services to address the traumatic event he experienced while under the care of [mother] and the instability he has experienced.”
Jurisdiction and disposition proceedings
On October 8, 2025, the juvenile court adjudicated the
The court dismissed the count (j) addressing father‘s prior case involving non-accidental trauma to the paternal half sibling. The court found there was insufficient evidence to sustain the
As to disposition, DCFS argued the child should be removed from mother and placed with father, with services provided to both parents. Father‘s counsel objected to the court keeping the case open, as father was nonoffending and had been caring for Sebastian without any concerns. In addition, father informed his attorney that Sebastian had been getting overwhelmed with the interviews from DCFS and argued it was in Sebastian‘s best interest to be free of court involvement.
Mother‘s attorney argued the case should not be terminated and reunification services should be offered to mother. Mother‘s attorney argued mother had separated from Daniel, was participating in treatment programs, the court had an obligation to keep the family together, and it was in Sebastian‘s best interest to maintain a relationship with mother. Mother‘s attorney urged the court to not close the case because mother “has just done so well in everything without even being ordered and loves her child[] dearly and wants to continue to properly coparent with the father.”
Sebastian‘s attorney asked the juvenile court to close the case, noting it was great that mother had taken initiative and wanted to better herself, but argued “there is simply no reason to
The juvenile court acknowledged the process could have a negative effect on Sebastian, stating, “That is something that the court takes very seriously because the goal in this area of law … is to bring families together through the process of family reunification and balance that against what is in the best interest of the minor … so that is what this court is doing.” The court continued, “in reviewing this case and being knowledgeable about intimate partner violence, cycle of violence and the impact that it has on not just the people who are physically in the cycle of violence but the collaterals, I think that the minor experiencing this and witnessing this and having to process it is in and of itself overwhelming. And absent some work, there is a high likelihood … this would be a situation that he … buries, and that is not good for him in the long term.” The court further noted, “For better or for worse, he witnessed this stuff. For better or for worse, it‘s a part of his experience growing up. And for better or for worse, in the same way that the mother and the father need tools to be able to learn and grow and develop and to really take some time to think through this overwhelming process, I also think the minor needs that help just as much.” Although Sebastian was more comfortable with father, the court wanted mother to do some work “mending [her] relationship” with Sebastian.
The juvenile court stated its goal to “make parties whole and bring relationships together.” For that reason, the court was
The juvenile court declared Sebastian a dependent of the court, removed him from mother‘s custody, and released him to father. The court ordered mother to attend individual counseling, a 12-step program, random substance testing, and parenting classes. The court ordered an individual counseling assessment for the child.
On October 27, 2025, father filed a notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
Father asserts the juvenile court erred in declining to terminate jurisdiction because father was nonoffending, father already completed services, and continued supervision was not necessary.
I. Applicable law and standard of review
At the jurisdiction stage of a dependency proceeding, the juvenile court determines whether the child is described by
When the court determines at the dispositional stage the child should be removed from his or her custodial parent, the court may consider placing the child with a noncustodial parent. In such cases, the court‘s placement decision is governed by
Pursuant to
Alternatively, pursuant to
The juvenile court has broad discretion to make any orders necessary to protect the dependent child. (
The juvenile court‘s dispositional order retaining jurisdiction over the minor is reviewed for abuse of discretion. (In re Austin P. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1135.) Under this standard, “‘“[a] reviewing court will not disturb that decision unless the trial court has exceeded the limits of legal discretion by making an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd determination.“‘” (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318.) “‘“[T]he appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason. When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court.“‘” (Id. at pp. 318–319.)
II. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in retaining jurisdiction
Father argues the juvenile court did not apply the correct legal standard in determining whether to terminate jurisdiction. Father cites In re Austin P., supra, 118 Cal.App.4th at page 1134 for the proposition that the appropriate legal standard is “whether there is a need for continuing supervision.” Instead of considering this standard, father argues, the court explained that it was balancing the goal of family reunification with the best interests of the minor.
In reviewing the juvenile court‘s expressed rationale for retaining jurisdiction over Sebastian, there is no indication the court used the wrong standard. The court explained it wanted to ensure Sebastian received services for the effects of his exposure to mother‘s substance abuse and domestic violence. In addition, the court wanted to provide mother with individual counseling, a
The above rationale shows the court considered factors relevant to the question of whether there was a need for continuing supervision. The court explained in detail why it concluded continued jurisdiction was necessary. The court was not required to state the applicable legal standard. Instead, it was father‘s burden to affirmatively show the wrong standard was applied. (F.T. v. L.J. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1, 16.) Father has not done so.
The juvenile court‘s decision that there was a need for continuing jurisdiction was not arbitrary or unreasonable. The juvenile court determined jurisdiction was necessary to offer services to mother and Sebastian and to allow them time to repair their relationship. DCFS had advocated for continued jurisdiction, opining “the family needs formal intervention to address the underlying needs that led to the family‘s involvement with [DCFS].” DCFS expressed concern that mother needed to learn the effects of alcohol consumption on a child as well as the importance of stability in a child‘s development. In addition, DCFS opined Sebastian needed therapeutic services to address the trauma he experienced while in mother‘s care.
Various relatives interviewed also emphasized the importance of Sebastian‘s relationship with mother. Stepmother expressed concern about the long-term effects the incident would have on Sebastian and understood the importance of a healthy relationship between Sebastian and mother. Paternal
Since Sebastian and mother needed services to protect the child‘s well-being, it was not appropriate for the juvenile court to terminate jurisdiction. (In re Destiny D. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 197, 211 (Destiny D.) [“Jurisdiction should not be terminated unless the court concludes services and ongoing supervision are not necessary to protect the child.“].)3
Father emphasizes that he provided proof of completion of services in the prior dependency matter and there were no safety concerns for Sebastian in father‘s care. Father‘s status as a “nonoffending” parent is not determinative of the juvenile court‘s decision to retain jurisdiction over the child. (Destiny D., supra, 15 Cal.App.5th at p. 209.) Instead, the court must determine whether ongoing supervision is necessary. Here, the juvenile court set forth in detail the reasons such supervision was necessary. Under the applicable standard of review in this matter, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the juvenile court, and we must affirm the juvenile court‘s decision
Father has not established that the juvenile court abused its discretion in retaining jurisdiction over Sebastian.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
CHAVEZ, Acting P. J.
We concur:
RICHARDSON, J.
GOORVITCH, J.