Filed 7/19/21 In re I.J. CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions 

not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion 

has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

In re I.J., et al., Persons Coming 

Under Juvenile Court Law.

_______________________________

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

P.J.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B308326

 (Los Angeles County Super.

Ct. No. 20CCJP00669A-C)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Craig S. Barnes, Judge. Affirmed.

Marsha F. Levine, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, and Jessica Mitchell, Deputy County 

Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________________
2

INTRODUCTION

Mother appeals after the juvenile court declared her three

children dependents of the court by sustaining a petition 

pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, 

subdivisions (a), (b), and (j).

1 She argues there was insufficient 

evidence her three children suffered or were at risk of serious 

physical harm. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The family consists of mother and her three sons, 12-yearold IJ (born 2008), 10-year-old R (born 2010), and 8-year-old N

(born 2013).

2 Mother also had a fourth child (born 2014), who 

died in March 2015 when he was seven months old. The cause of 

the baby’s death was undetermined, though contributing factors 

included unsafe sleeping environment, co-sleeping, and a 

rhinovirus infection.

At the time the Department of Children and Family 

Services (DCFS) intervened on behalf of the children, Eduardo 

(mother’s boyfriend who does not share any children with 

mother), resided with mother and the three children in a threebedroom home owned by the maternal grandfather. Mother and 

Eduardo had been together for over four years. The maternal 

uncle, the maternal aunt, and several cousins also resided in the 

family home. Mother reported that no one paid rent since the 

maternal grandfather owned the family home.

1 All subsequent statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code.

2 Mother was 13 years old when she became pregnant with 

her eldest.
3

The children’s respective fathers do not appeal.3

1. DCFS History

From March 2006 to November 2010, mother was herself a 

dependent child. She denied experiencing abuse or neglect as a 

child.

As an adult, mother has had an extensive history with 

DCFS which included an agreement to Voluntary Family 

Maintenance (VFM) due to her baby’s death. In that case, 

mother was unable to participate in the recommended programs 

due to her hospitalization in November 2015 for a stomach 

procedure. The VFM case was closed due to mother’s “incapacity 

to participate in the recommended Domestic Violence [program] 

and counseling.”

Mother had seven other prior DCFS referrals alleging 

physical abuse, neglect, and/or emotional abuse. Five referrals 

were deemed inconclusive, one referral was deemed unfounded, 

and a 2017 referral for general neglect involving domestic 

violence between Mother and Eduardo was substantiated. Per 

the police report in the last referral, Eduardo pushed mother to 

the ground during an argument and then punched a wall, 

damaging it.

4 DCFS did not open a case in 2017 related to that 

neglect because, after his arrest for the domestic violence 

incident, mother obtained a restraining order against Eduardo.

5 

3 Mother and the children had no recent contact with the 

children’s respective fathers. 

4 Mother admitted Eduardo had engaged in domestic 

violence, but asserted that Eduardo never hit her.

5 Eduardo’s criminal record was so extensive that DCFS 

described the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications 
4

The order barred Eduardo from contacting or coming within 100 

yards of mother and the children. Five months after the order 

was issued, mother had the restraining order modified to allow 

for peaceful contact, which led Eduardo to return living in the 

family home. Evidence was that Eduardo has lived there since 

without additional domestic violence incidents. 

In 2017, in proceedings related to one of the inconclusive 

referrals, the eldest child (IJ) disclosed that he was afraid to go 

home because mother hits him. He said that mother had hit him 

with a belt a few months earlier. The child also reported “ ‘my 

mom used to hit me, but not anymore . . . but sometimes she still 

slaps me.’ ”

2. Present Physical Abuse 

On September 27, 2019, DCFS received a referral alleging

that mother and Eduardo physically abused then-eight-year-old 

R. The reporting party stated R disclosed that Eduardo had 

kicked R’s legs or hit his stomach with an open hand when R 

refused to go to bed. R told the reporting party that Eduardo hit

him “kind of hard” and that the last time he was kicked was “ ‘a 

long time ago,’ ” or “ ‘18 months ago.’ ” R denied having any 

marks or bruises. 

In October 2019, DCFS went to the family home and 

interviewed mother, Eduardo, and the children. The family’s 

three-bedroom, three-bath home consistently appeared clean. 

DCFS interviewed the family again in January and May 2020. 

We summarize the family’s statements below.

a. R’s Interviews

In October 2019, R was in the third grade. He stated he 

was not allowed to use his computer tablet for one hour whenever 

System as showing “too many hits” for Eduardo’s criminal history 

to be described in detail. 
5

he got into trouble. In contrast to what the reporting party told 

DCFS the month before, R denied ever being spanked by mother 

or Eduardo, denied being hit or kicked by anyone in the home, 

and denied that anyone had talked to him about meeting with the 

social worker. R reported he felt safe in the home because his 

“big brother was there to protect him.” The social worker 

observed R had several white scars on the top part of his left and 

right arms. When asked about the scars, R reported he had 

fallen and scraped his arm.6

In a January 2020 interview, R reiterated that neither he 

nor his siblings were abused or neglected, and that he felt safe at 

home. R acted confused when the social worker told him the 

basis for DCFS’s inquiry was R’s October 2019 statement to his 

therapist that Eduardo had hit and kicked him. At the end of 

January 2020, a forensic medical evaluation of R revealed that he 

had a purple bruise with an abrasion on his forearm from his 

brother IJ biting him. The nurse practitioner evaluating him

reported that mother said R had behavioral issues and was 

aggressive toward his siblings. R was attending weekly therapy

sessions. 

In May 2020, R again denied any physical abuse.

b. IJ’s Interviews 

In October 2019, mother’s eldest child, IJ, was in middle 

school. He was then 11 years old. IJ reported that mother 

disciplined him by taking away his cellphone. IJ denied being 

spanked or that Eduardo had ever hit him. He said he did not 

know why R reported being hit. IJ also denied that mother or 

Eduardo had talked to him about meeting with the social worker. 

6 In January 2020, R had several scratches across the right 

and left arms, which he attributed to a squirrel attacking him at 

the park.
6

He felt safe in the family home. IJ again denied experiencing 

abuse when he was interviewed by DCFS in January and May 

2020. IJ had old scars on his elbow. It appeared that IJ had 

behavioral problems and scratched, bit, and hit his brothers. IJ

had not yet been enrolled in behavioral therapy 

c. N’s Interviews

In October 2019, mother’s youngest son, N was six years 

old and in first grade. N stated that mother punished him by 

taking away his tablet or phone, and hitting him with a belt. He 

said Eduardo never hit him. N was unable to report if his 

brothers were also hit with a belt, identify the last time he was 

hit by mother, or explain why he was hit. N then stated that “ ‘a 

couple months ago,’ ” mother had hit him with a belt 11 times for 

not listening to her. N explained mother hit him more often than 

she would discipline him by taking away the tablet or telephone. 

N also reported feeling safe at home. 

A few months later, in January 2020, N denied to social 

workers that he had experienced abuse and neglect, and denied 

seeing his siblings abused or neglected. At the time, N had 

scratch marks on his arms that he attributed to IJ biting and 

scratching him. N said that whenever he and his brothers got 

punished for something, IJ would become aggressive toward N 

and R. Mother confirmed IJ bit and scratched the other children. 

A week later, N underwent a forensic medical examination and 

again reported that mother had hit him with a belt. He said this 

had happened when he was in kindergarten.7 The evaluation 

revealed that N had old facial scars, but no physical evidence of 

present abuse. 

7 At the time of the evaluation, N was midway through first 

grade.
7

In May 2020, N repeated that mother had hit him with a 

belt a “long time ago.” He did not know how old he was when it 

happened but stated she did not hit him anymore. He was not 

scared of mother.

d. The Interviews of Mother and Eduardo

When asked during an October 2019 interview with DCFS, 

mother denied ever physically disciplining the children, and 

stated that, for punishment, she took things away from them. In 

a January 2020 interview with a forensic medical evaluator, 

mother admitted to hitting the children with a belt as a form of 

discipline, but stated she had not used the belt since 2015. In 

May 2020, mother changed her story again. At that juncture, 

mother stated, “ ‘No, I didn’t hit [N] with the belt. I don’t 

physically abuse my children,’ ” “ ‘I only take away things when 

they don’t listen to me,’ ” and “ ‘I don’t let him use the tablet or 

my phone to play games.’ ” Mother added, “ ‘[N] had no marks. I 

never hit him with the belt. I would spank him when he was like 

[three] years old. I didn’t cause my son pain and suffering. He 

had no belt marks. He did have old scars because of his 

brothers.’ ” Mother repeated, “ ‘I don’t’ physically abuse my 

kids.’ ”

Mother said her live-in boyfriend, Eduardo, was the only 

other person allowed to punish her children and that he had 

never physically disciplined or hit the children. Mother was 

present with the children most of the time because she was a 

stay-at-home mother. Mother explained R had told his therapist 

that Eduardo kicked him out of his room, and that R’s statements 

were taken out of context by the therapist: R did not mean he 

was physically kicked by Eduardo.

8

8 It appears that R’s therapist was the reporting party who 

initiated the present referral to DCFS.
8

When interviewed, Eduardo denied that he or mother 

physically disciplined the children. Eduardo stated that, 

whenever he could, he was still participating in domestic violence 

classes related to the 2017 criminal restraining order. As of 

January 2020, Eduardo’s attendance had been spotty: he 

completed only 18 of the 52 classes. Eduardo said he returned to 

the family home because mother needed him to continue 

contributing towards the rent and he was financially unable to 

rent his own place.9

In May 2020, Edwardo denied that mother physically 

abused the children or spanked them, and denied they were in 

danger with her. Eduardo said mother disciplined the children 

by taking away their videogames or telephones and talking to 

them. He denied hitting the children and said he was against 

hitting.

Mother and Eduardo were open to receiving the same 

services DCFS had provided in mother’s 2015 VFM case, where 

the children remained in mother’s home. Mother and Eduardo 

planned to marry after resolving their issues with DCFS.

DCFS expressed concern the parents coached the children 

“not [to] disclose physical abuse, as the children appear to have 

old scars, abrasions and have reported abuse in the past.”

3. Section 300 Petition

On February 4, 2020, DCFS filed a non-detained section 

300 petition, alleging under subdivisions (a), (b), and (j):

“On prior occasions, the children [IJ], [R], and [N]’s 

mother, . . . physically abused the child [N] by 

striking the child’s body with belts. Such physical 

abuse was excessive and caused the child 

9 This statement was inconsistent with mother’s statement 

that she and her siblings did not pay rent.
9

unreasonable pain and suffering. Such physical 

abuse of the child by the mother endangers the 

child’s physical health and safety and places the child 

and the child’s siblings, [IJ] and [R], at risk of serious 

physical harm, damage, danger, and physical abuse.”

At the February 5, 2020, detention hearing, the juvenile 

court released the children to mother and allowed Eduardo to 

remain in the home.

4. Services Prior to the Jurisdiction Hearing

In July 2020, Mother reported completing parenting 

education and participating in seven sessions of individual 

counseling. Mother’s therapist reported mother had been 

“punctual, open, motivated, engaged and willing to work on 

treatment goals. The mother has been consistent.” Mother was 

on a waiting list for domestic violence counseling. The children 

had been receiving individual counseling.

The same month, Eduardo completed a 10-week parenting 

course. He was expected to finish his court-mandated 52-week 

domestic violence program that summer.

All three children were receiving individual therapy.

5. Jurisdiction and Disposition

The combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing occurred

on October 5, 2020. The juvenile court received into evidence, 

without objection, various DCFS reports.

DCFS argued that mother minimized the physical abuse 

she committed when she hit N with a belt. DCFS was concerned 

about the children’s safety given the family history of referrals 

alleging physical abuse, the previous domestic violence between 

Eduardo and mother, the young age of the children, and the 

baby’s fatality in 2015. DCFS advocated for sustaining the 

petition to “keep an eye on things” and to ensure mother and 

Eduardo complete their programs.
10

Counsel for each of the three children joined in DCFS’s 

request to sustain the petition. R’s counsel expressed additional 

concerns and argued, “[N] said . . . that he was hit with a belt 

when he was in kindergarten. And there have been several 

referrals in this case, as well as the domestic violence restraining 

order that was put in place in 2017, and that was lifted just 

several months later. [¶] So there are definitely concerns about 

DV in this case, which I believe put the children at risk, even 

though I know that is not what was pled in this case. But I am 

asking for all counts to be sustained as pled.”

Mother’s counsel asked the court to dismiss the petition in 

its entirety and argued, “Now both minors’ counsel and county 

counsel have indicated that there is the information about 

domestic violence, mother losing her child. Those things are not 

pled. [¶] So they cannot ask the court now to take jurisdiction on 

a case based on information that is not only pled, but is not 

evidence of physical abuse to these children. The allegation is 

whether mother used a belt to discipline her children to the point 

where it constituted physical abuse, and we don’t have that here.” 

Mother’s counsel argued there was no evidence of bruises, welts, 

broken skin and N’s statements does not say he suffered any sort 

of injury. Mother’s counsel, citing In re Mariah T. and In re 

David H., argued that using a belt to spank a child did not, in 

and of itself, rise to the level of physical abuse. Counsel claimed 

“the evidence we have supports that mother used the belt in a 

way that was equivalent to age-appropriate spanking.”

The juvenile court directed the following statement to 

DCFS’s counsel: “I’m unclear why this petition is so thin. It 

looks like a lot more activity was going on.” The court added, 

“The mother’s delegated to the boyfriend the right to discipline 

the children, and I don’t see that referenced in the petition. But 

it looks like there are times when he has done so after consuming 
11

a copious amount of alcohol.[

10] In addition, [N] says just a 

couple of months prior to the detention, he got hit 11 times with a 

belt and some more after that, and further disciplined.”

DCFS’s counsel replied, “My thoughts are that the petition 

is underpled. My thoughts are also that a lot of what [mother’s 

counsel] said is true; it’s a dispositional matter. We set forth the 

way the department sees it, that there’s not clear and convincing 

evidence at this point to justify taking the kids out. But the risk 

going forward – and the court should look at the entire picture. 

[¶] The court is not limited to just the fact that the belt and –

alone was pled in the petition. The court can look at the whole 

thing as to whether or not there’s risk, which is formed in the (a) 

and the (b) counts, which justify the court taking jurisdiction and 

keeping an eye on things. I believe is met by preponderance of

the evidence here.”

The juvenile court sustained the section 300 petition under 

subdivisions (a), (b)(1), and (j), as pled. The court stated:

“[A] risk that seems to not be fully addressed, which 

is the delegation of responsibility to someone who is 

disciplining the children in a manner that I think is

far beyond what [mother’s counsel] described. [¶] 

And the practice is more than just once or twice being 

struck by a belt, but described as much more 

extensive than that. And so not entirely below the 

radar because it’s referenced in reports. But what I 

had highlighted in here is what looks like an 

underpled petition that would have had further 

10 There was evidence that Eduardo appeared intoxicated 

during the domestic 2017 violence incident. It is unclear what

events to which the trial court was referring when it stated that

Eduardo disciplined the children while intoxicated.
12

allegations if connected more directly with the 

references in the report. [¶] And so I think the 

department has met its burden in terms of the risk. 

And that’s not to say mother is not engaged in trying 

to address it, but I think the risk is far more 

embedded. It would need to be addressed more 

comprehensively. [DCFS’s counsel] had talked about 

the boyfriend and certain practices there.”

The court added it understood mother’s counsel’s 

arguments about the petition being under pled. The court 

nonetheless found the petition “was sufficiently pled to trigger 

the court to look at if there’s a current risk. And I think there are 

risks there in the report that would support justifying a finding.”

The juvenile court’s disposition order allowed the children 

to remain released to mother with family maintenance services. 

Mother’s case plan included parenting classes, family 

preservation services, individual counseling to address caserelated issues, and conjoint counseling with Eduardo when 

appropriate.

Mother appealed.

DISCUSSION

Mother argues that there was insufficient evidence to 

support the court’s jurisdictional finding because there was no 

evidence N suffered serious physical harm from being hit by a 

belt or that her children were at risk of suffering harm. She also 

argues that it was error to base jurisdictional findings on unpled 

conduct. We disagree.

1. Applicable Law

The juvenile court found the children dependent under 

section 300, subdivisions (a), (b)(1), and (j). We address only the 

subdivision (a) count.
13

“When a dependency petition alleges multiple grounds for 

its assertion that a minor comes within the dependency court’s 

jurisdiction, a reviewing court can affirm the juvenile court’s 

finding of jurisdiction over the minor if any one of the statutory 

bases for jurisdiction that are enumerated in the petition is 

supported by substantial evidence. In such a case, the reviewing 

court need not consider whether any or all of the other alleged 

statutory grounds for jurisdiction are supported by the evidence.” 

(In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 451.)

Jurisdiction is warranted under section 300, subdivision 

(a), where: “The child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk 

that the child will suffer, serious physical harm inflicted 

nonaccidentally upon the child by the child’s parent. . . .” (§ 300, 

subd. (a).)

“We review the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings for 

sufficiency of the evidence. We review the record to determine 

whether there is any substantial evidence to support the juvenile 

court’s conclusions, and we resolve all conflicts and make all 

reasonable inferences from the evidence to uphold the court’s 

orders, if possible. However, substantial evidence is not 

synonymous with any evidence. . . . [W]hile substantial evidence 

may consist of inferences, such inferences must be a product of 

logic and reason and must rest on the evidence; inferences that 

are the result of mere speculation or conjecture cannot support a 

finding.” (In re Drake M. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 754, 763

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).)11

11 Mother’s substantial evidence argument is limited to 

subdivisions (a) and (b)(1): “Substantial Evidence Does Not 

Support The Singular Allegation In The Petition Under Section 

300, Subdivisions (a) And (b)(1) That Mother, On Prior Occasions, 

Physically Abused Nathan By Striking His Body With Belts, 
14

2. Substantial Evidence Supports Jurisdiction

We agree with DCFS that substantial evidence supports 

the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding under subdivision (a). 

As such, we need not and do not, address whether jurisdiction 

was also proper under (b)(1) and (j). (In re Alexis E., supra,

171 Cal.App.4th at p. 451.)

The youngest child, N, repeatedly said that mother had hit 

him with a belt. In October 2019, N reported that mother had 

struck him 11 times two months previously for not listening. He 

was physically disciplined more often than his mother punished 

him by denying him access to the family tablet. In January 2020, 

N repeated that mother had hit him with a belt, this time saying 

it happened in kindergarten. When the dependency investigator 

interviewed N in March 2020, the child again disclosed mother 

hit him with a belt, stating: “ ‘My mom hit me with the belt a 

long time ago but I don’t know what age I was. She doesn’t hit 

me anymore.’ ”

Other evidence corroborated N’s statements. Mother 

herself admitted to a nurse practitioner during the children’s 

medical evaluations that she had previously used a belt to hit the 

children. Mother qualified this statement by saying she stopped 

using the belt in 2015, when N was two years old. Given N’s 

persistent statements as a six- and seven-year-old that he had 

been hit more recently than mother admitted, the court 

Causing Him Unreasonable Pain And Suffering.” (All capital 

letters in original.)

In the conclusion section of both the opening and reply 

briefs, mother refers to the (j) count as “derivative.” As we read 

mothers briefs, she contends insufficient evidence supports the 

finding that any children suffered actual physical harm and 

hence there is no evidence that they will do so in the future. 
15

reasonably could have found mother’s statement about 2015 was 

not credible. 

Mother also had an extensive history of abuse and neglect 

referrals. During an investigation in 2017, the eldest child IJ 

disclosed that he was afraid to go home because mother hit him 

and used a belt a few months earlier. Although the children 

sometimes denied abuse, DCFS reported that mother appeared to 

be coaching the children. The juvenile court was entitled to 

credit the DCFS report and to believe N’s testimony of physical 

abuse.

Mother repeatedly minimized her violence, denying in her 

conversations with DCFS that she had used a belt on the children

at all. On appeal, she argues that hitting a six-year-old with a 

belt constitutes “age-appropriate spanking.” Mother also 

suggests that there must be a previous injury for the juvenile 

court to sustain jurisdiction under subdivision (a). She asserts 

that there was no physical abuse because there is no evidence 

that mother caused N presently visible injuries or that N 

complained of such injuries. 

That is not the law. The juvenile court is not limited by the 

lack of direct evidence of “bruises, welts, broken skin, . . . [or] 

even statements of injury” from a six- or seven-year-old to 

conclude there was sufficient evidence of a present danger to the 

children. Nor was the juvenile court required to wait “until a 

child is seriously abused or injured to assume jurisdiction and 

take steps necessary to protect the child.” (In re N.M. (2011) 

197 Cal.App.4th 159, 165.) 

The evidence supports the conclusion that even if the 

children had not yet suffered serious physical injury, they were at 

substantial risk of serious physical harm in mother’s care. The 

juvenile court found implicitly that mother was in denial, and

explicitly that mother had hit N with a belt on previous 
16

occasions. The trial was reasonably concerned that mother 

allowed Eduardo, the perpetrator of domestic violence against 

her, to return to the family home before he completed domestic 

violence classes. The juvenile court expressly found that mother

permitted Eduardo to discipline the children. The court stated 

that the risk to the children was “embedded” in the family’s life,

and although mother had made some efforts at remediation, the 

risk needed “to be addressed more comprehensively” following the 

jurisdiction findings.

3. The Trial Court Did Not Err by Considering “Unpled 

Facts”

Mother separately argues that the juvenile court 

impermissibly relied on unalleged facts to sustain the petition. 

By that, we assume mother asserts that only by considering the 

unpled allegations could the juvenile court have lawfully

sustained the petition. We are not persuaded. Common sense 

tells us that a juvenile court would be abdicating its 

responsibilities if it ignored relevant evidence because those facts 

had not been expressly pled in the petition. In ascertaining the 

risk of further abuse, the court may consider past events that

reasonably relate to future risk. “A dependency petition must 

contain a ‘concise statement of facts, separately stated, to support 

the conclusion that the child upon whose behalf the petition is 

being brought is a person within the definition of each of the 

sections and subdivisions under which the proceedings are being 

instituted.’ (§ 332, subd. (f).) There is no requirement, however, 

that Agency ‘regurgitate the contents of the social worker’s report 

into a petition[.]’ [Citation.] The statute ‘merely requires the 

pleading of essential facts establishing at least one ground of 

juvenile court jurisdiction.’ [Citation.] Notice of the specific facts 

on which the petition is based is fundamental to due process 
17

because it enables the parties to properly meet the charges.” (In 

re T.V. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 126, 131.)

Mother cites In re J.O. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 139, 152, fn. 

13, for the principle that “a court could not properly consider 

unalleged actions in making a jurisdictional finding.” We do not 

read this statement as broadly as does mother. In re J.O. quotes

from In re Jeremy C. (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 384, 397 (Jeremy C.), 

that “fundamental [ ] due process” requires “[n]otice of the 

specific facts upon which removal of a child from parental custody 

is predicated” in order to “enable the parties to properly meet the 

charges.” There, the section 300 petition contained a “bare recital 

of the conclusionary words of the [charging] statute,” alleging

that the child’s home was “ ‘an unfit place for him by reason of 

neglect, cruelty, depravity or physical abuse of either of his 

parents, or of his guardians or other persons in whose custody or 

care he is.’ ” (Ibid.)

Unlike the conclusory petition in Jeremy C., here the 

petition expressly alleged jurisdiction based on mother hitting N 

with a belt, causing physical injury, and creating a substantial 

risk of future harm. It was that specific conduct that formed the 

basis of the court’s jurisdiction order. That DCFS presented a 

larger picture of family violence and evidence of the death of a 

sibling did not undermine the validity of the jurisdictional 

finding.

DISPOSITION

The court’s jurisdictional finding and dispositional order 

are affirmed. 

RUBIN, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

MOOR, J. KIM, J.