Filed 6/17/22 In re Serenity D. CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

In re SERENITY D. et al., 

Persons Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law.

 B314891

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 

21CCJP02117A-B)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF 

CHILDREN AND FAMILY 

SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

AARON D.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, Stacy Wiese, Judge. Affirmed.

Landon Villavaso, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
2

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

Assistant County Counsel and Kelly Emling, Social Justice 

Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

________________________________

Aaron D., father of seven-year-old Serenity D. and fouryear-old Levi D., appeals from the jurisdiction findings and 

disposition order declaring Serenity and Levi dependents of the 

juvenile court and releasing them to Aaron and their mother, 

Vanessa J. On appeal Aaron argues the court’s jurisdiction 

finding he had engaged in domestic violence was not supported 

by substantial evidence. He also contends the court abused its 

discretion by failing to terminate dependency jurisdiction at the 

conclusion of the combined jurisdiction/disposition hearing. We 

affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. The Detention of Serenity and Levi 

On April 16, 2021 the Los Angeles County Department of 

Children and Family Services received a report that, on the 

previous day, Aaron and Vanessa had engaged in a physical 

altercation in front of Serenity. When interviewed by a 

Department social worker the following week, Aaron explained 

he and Vanessa had been married for 10 years and had separated 

in January 2021. On the day of the altercation Aaron was home 

with Vanessa, his two brothers, Alan H. and Abram H., and 

Serenity. Earlier that day Vanessa and Aaron had been sexually 

intimate, and Vanessa had surreptitiously recorded the 

encounter on her cell phone. She threatened to post the video to 

her social media account and send it to Aaron’s girlfriend. Aaron 

took the phone from Vanessa to try to delete the video. According 

to Aaron, Vanessa began slapping and punching him in an 
3

attempt to get the phone back. Vanessa then took a butcher 

knife from the kitchen and waved it threateningly at Aaron. 

Alan was able to restrain Vanessa; but, after she threatened to 

stab Alan, Aaron told him to release her. Still waving the knife, 

Vanessa pursued Aaron from the kitchen to his bedroom. At 

some point Vanessa pinned Aaron against a wall with the knife 

and inflicted two superficial cuts to Aaron’s neck, which had 

healed by the time the social worker interviewed him. 

Eventually either Aaron or one of his brothers was able to disarm 

Vanessa. She continued to attack him, ripping his shirt and 

biting him on his torso. Aaron, still holding Vanessa’s cell phone, 

went downstairs to the parking lot and threw the phone over the 

fence. Vanessa jumped over the fence, falling and injuring 

herself. Vanessa then left to pick up Levi at school. Once at the 

school Vanessa notified staff Aaron had attacked her, and police 

were called. One of Aaron’s brothers also called the police. After 

taking statements from Vanessa, Aaron, Alan and Abram, the 

police officers determined Vanessa was the “dominant aggressor” 

and arrested her for domestic violence and criminal threats. 

Aaron told the social worker that Serenity had been in the 

room when the fight began and she saw Vanessa take out the 

knife. After Serenity began to cry, Abram took her into a 

bedroom so she would not witness the rest of the fight. Aaron 

said there had been only one previous incident of domestic 

violence in the relationship, over nine years earlier, which

involved Vanessa punching Aaron. Aaron informed the social 

worker he did not intend to reconcile with Vanessa and he would 

be filing for divorce. Aaron obtained a temporary restraining 

order against Vanessa on April 20, 2021.
4

Vanessa gave the social worker only a brief account of the 

incident. She admitted to filming explicit video of Aaron on her 

cell phone and stated the fight began when Aaron took her phone 

and would not return it. Vanessa said Aaron and his brothers 

“ganged up on her” and she picked up the knife in self-defense. 

Vanessa told the social worker she understood her actions that 

day were wrong and nothing similar had ever happened before. 

Vanessa’s statement to police officers the day of the incident 

contained additional details. The police report stated that, when 

police initially responded to the school to speak to Vanessa, she 

was “in a state of panic” and was too “frantic” to explain what 

had happened. After being taken to the hospital, Vanessa was 

able to tell the police officers that, after taking the cell phone 

from her, Aaron had pushed her against a wall, put his forearm 

against her neck and squeezed her neck with his other hand. 

Vanessa said she had been unable to breathe. Vanessa was able 

to get away from Aaron and grabbed the knife from the kitchen. 

After Aaron’s brother took the knife from her, Vanessa and Aaron 

continued to wrestle for the cell phone. Vanessa was being 

treated for pain to her lower back. The police officer observed a 

small bruise on Vanessa’s forearm.

The social worker interviewed Serenity a week after the 

incident. Serenity told the social worker, “Mommy almost cut 

daddy. I was a scared.” However, when police officers spoke to 

Serenity the day of the incident, they reported she “appeared to 

have no knowledge that an incident even occurred.” 

Abram’s and Alan’s statements to the police officers and 

the social worker mostly corroborated Aaron’s statements. 

However, the police report noted, “there appeared to be some 

confusion as to who was the one that wrapped their arms around 
5

[Vanessa] and who retrieved the knife” after she had been 

disarmed, as both Abram and Alan claimed they had been the 

one to do so. 

The Department filed a petition on May 6, 2021 pursuant 

to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a) and 

(b)(1),1 alleging Aaron and Vanessa had a history of engaging in 

violent altercations, and recounting details of the April 15, 2021 

incident. The petition alleged the parents’ violent conduct 

endangered Serenity’s and Levi’s physical health and safety.

At the detention hearing on May 11, 2021 the court stated 

that, although the violence between Aaron and Vanessa was 

“probably mutual,” the court was particularly concerned that 

Vanessa had threatened Aaron with a knife in front of Serenity. 

Accordingly, the court detained Serenity and Levi from Vanessa 

and released them to Aaron. Aaron’s counsel requested a stay 

away order, noting the temporary restraining order expired the 

day of the hearing. Vanessa’s counsel also requested a stay away 

order, explaining Aaron had shown up at Vanessa’s workplace 

the prior week. The court issued mutual stay away orders and 

ordered unmonitored visits for Vanessa.

2. The Jurisdiction/Disposition Report

In a report filed July 14, 2021 the Department summarized 

additional interviews with the family. Aaron’s account of the 

altercation was consistent with his earlier statements. He 

stated, “We were arguing over the phone. I had her phone, she 

fought for the phone. It escalated to her getting a knife. . . . We 

were wrestling around. I understand she was upset but it was 

1 Statutory references are to this code.
6

just the way she went about it, especially since my daughter was 

there.” 

Vanessa initially refused to discuss the incident, telling the 

social worker to read her earlier statements. She subsequently 

agreed to be interviewed, as described in a report filed by the 

Department on August 16, 2021. Vanessa told the social worker 

that she and Aaron “had an intimate moment and I had a video 

recording of the intimate moment. After that he took my phone 

to try to delete the video. We wrestled in the house over the 

phone, I was looking for the phone.” According to Vanessa, the 

argument began playfully but became more aggressive. She said 

they “tussled” for approximately 30 minutes before Aaron’s 

brothers intervened. Vanessa continued, “I got tired of fighting 

his brothers. I grabbed a knife from the kitchen and his one 

brother took my daughter to his room to get her out of the way.” 

Vanessa admitted she had held the knife to Aaron’s throat but 

insisted she never intended to hurt him. Contrary to her earlier 

statement, Vanessa said Aaron pushed her against the wall after 

she had dropped the knife. Vanessa explained she had been hurt 

that Aaron was dating someone else. She said that she “wanted 

to use the video as leverage between him and [the other woman]. 

Now, I see I could have gone about it in a different way.” 

In a June 2021 interview Serenity told the social worker, “I 

saw mommy holding a knife, she almost cut daddy’s neck. They 

were arguing because daddy stole mommy’s phone. It was kinda 

scary. Mommy got angry because daddy got a new friend, a 

grown-up lady.” The social worker reported Serenity and Levi 

did not appear to have any behavioral issues, were physically 

healthy and were bonded to Aaron.
7

Vanessa told the social worker she wanted to reconcile with 

Aaron. Aaron initially told the social worker he did not want to 

reconcile; his goal was to cordially coparent with Vanessa. 

However, in a last minute information filed on August 25, 2021 

the Department reported a social worker had “spoke[n] to the 

parents . . . who informed her that they wish to work on their 

relationship and reunite as a couple. The parents both admitted 

to infidelity in their relationship, and the mother stated that on 

the date of the incident that was the basis for what led to the 

Intimate Partner Violence incident. The mother admitted to [the 

social worker] that she ‘took it too far’ and realized that she 

placed her daughter, Serenity, in harm’s way.” The Department 

further reported it had difficulty reaching Aaron throughout the 

case and believed he was purposely making it difficult for the 

Department to schedule interviews and conduct visits with the 

children.

3. The Jurisdiction/Disposition Hearing

At the jurisdiction/disposition hearing on August 30, 2021 

Vanessa’s counsel argued the petition should be dismissed 

because Serenity had not been harmed and there was no current 

risk of harm, as Aaron and Vanessa had been abiding by the stay 

away order. Aaron’s counsel asked the court to dismiss the 

petition as to Aaron, arguing Vanessa had been the aggressor 

and Aaron had acted appropriately after the altercation by 

obtaining a temporary restraining order and filing for divorce. 

Aaron’s counsel also informed the court that, contrary to the 

Department’s most recent report, Aaron did not intend to 

reconcile with Vanessa. Counsel for Serenity and Levi requested 

the court sustain the petition, stating that, even if Aaron had not 

been the initial aggressor, he provoked the incident by taking 
8

Vanessa’s phone and continued to fight with her rather than 

returning it.

The juvenile court sustained the petition. The court found 

Aaron and Vanessa had been mutually aggressive and Aaron had 

at least partially provoked the situation. The court observed this 

was the second domestic violence incident in the relationship and 

had been witnessed by Serenity.

Proceeding immediately to disposition, Vanessa and the 

minors’ counsel requested the children be released to both 

parents. Aaron requested the court grant sole physical custody to 

him and close the case. He argued he had provided a safe home 

for Serenity and Levi in the months since the case had been

opened. The Department argued the case should remain open 

and the children should continue to reside with Aaron and have 

unmonitored visitation with Vanessa. 

The juvenile court declined to terminate jurisdiction and 

released Serenity and Levi to both parents on the condition the

parents reside separately. The court ordered family maintenance 

services, including a domestic violence program, for Vanessa, 

individual counseling for both parents and conjoint counseling if 

the parents decided to reconcile. The court also ordered the stay 

away order to remain in place.

Aaron filed a timely notice of appeal. 

DISCUSSION

1. We Have Discretion To Review the Jurisdiction 

Findings 

Vanessa did not appeal, and Aaron does not challenge the 

juvenile court’s jurisdiction findings as to her. Those findings 

provide an independent basis for affirming dependency 

jurisdiction over Serenity and Levi regardless of any alleged error 
9

in the findings as to Aaron. (In re I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 

1484, 1492 [jurisdiction finding involving one parent is good 

against both; “‘“the minor is a dependent if the actions of either 

parent bring [him or her] within one of the statutory definitions 

of a dependent”’”]; see In re M.W. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1444, 

1452; In re Briana V. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 297, 310-311.) As a 

result, even if we reverse the findings as to Aaron, the juvenile 

court would still be authorized to exercise jurisdiction over the 

children and to enter all reasonable orders necessary to protect 

them, including orders binding on Aaron that address conduct 

not alleged in the petition. (In re Briana V., at p. 311 [“The 

problem that the juvenile court seeks to address need not be 

described in the sustained section 300 petition. [Citation.] In 

fact, there need not be a jurisdictional finding as to the particular 

parent upon whom the court imposes a dispositional order”]; 

In re I.A., at p. 1492 [“[a] jurisdictional finding involving the 

conduct of a particular parent is not necessary for the court to 

enter orders binding on that parent, once dependency jurisdiction 

has been established”]; see generally § 362, subd. (a) [the juvenile 

court “may make any and all reasonable orders for the care, 

supervision, custody, conduct, maintenance, and support of the 

child”].) 

Nonetheless, in limited circumstances reviewing courts 

have exercised their discretion to consider an appeal challenging 

a jurisdiction finding despite the existence of an independent and 

unchallenged ground for jurisdiction when those findings serve as 

the basis for disposition orders also challenged on appeal. (In re 

J.C. (2014) 233 Cal.App.4th 1, 4; see In re D.P. (2015) 

237 Cal.App.4th 911, 917.) Because Aaron makes such a 

challenge in this case—he argues the order at disposition 
10

continuing jurisdiction was an abuse of discretion—we exercise 

our discretion and review the jurisdiction findings.

2. Substantial Evidence Supports the Domestic Violence 

Finding as to Aaron Under Section 300, 

Subdivision (b)(1)

a. Governing law and standard of review

The purpose of section 300 “is to provide maximum safety 

and protection for children who are currently being physically, 

sexually, or emotionally abused, being neglected, or being 

exploited, and to ensure the safety, protection, and physical and 

emotional well-being of children who are at risk of that harm.” 

(§ 300.2; see In re A.F. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 283, 289; In re 

Giovanni F. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 594, 599.) 

Section 300, subdivision (b)(1), allows a child to be 

adjudged a dependent of the juvenile court when “[t]he child has 

suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, 

serious physical harm or illness, as a result of the failure or 

inability of his or her parent or guardian to adequately supervise 

or protect the child, or the willful or negligent failure of the 

child’s parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the 

child.” A jurisdiction finding under section 300, 

subdivision (b)(1), requires the Department to prove three 

elements: (1) the parent’s or guardian’s neglectful conduct or 

failure or inability to protect the child; (2) causation; and 

(3) serious physical harm or illness or a substantial risk of 

serious physical harm or illness. (In re L.W. (2019) 

32 Cal.App.5th 840, 848; In re Joaquin C. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 

537, 561; see In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 624 

[“section 300(b)(1) authorizes dependency jurisdiction without a 
11

finding that a parent is at fault or blameworthy for her failure or 

inability to supervise or protect her child”].)

Although section 300 requires proof the child is subject to 

the defined risk of harm at the time of the jurisdiction hearing 

(In re D.L. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1142, 1146), the court need not 

wait until a child is seriously abused or injured to assume 

jurisdiction and take steps necessary to protect the child. 

(In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773; In re Kadence P. (2015) 

241 Cal.App.4th 1376, 1383; In re N.M. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 

159, 165.) The court may consider past events in deciding 

whether a child currently needs the court’s protection. (In re 

Christopher R. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1215-1216; In re 

N.M., at p. 165.) A parent’s “‘[p]ast conduct may be probative of 

current conditions’ if there is reason to believe that the conduct 

will continue.” (In re S.O. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 453, 461; 

accord, In re J.N. (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 767, 775 [“[e]vidence of 

past conduct may be probative of current conditions and may 

assist DCFS in meeting [its burden of proof]”]; In re Kadence P., 

at p. 1384.)

“‘In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence 

supporting the jurisdictional findings and disposition, we 

determine if substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, 

supports them. “In making this determination, we draw all 

reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings 

and orders of the dependency court; we review the record in the 

light most favorable to the court’s determinations; and we note 

that issues of fact and credibility are the province of the trial 

court.” [Citation.] “We do not reweigh the evidence or exercise 

independent judgment, but merely determine if there are 

sufficient facts to support the findings of the trial court.”’” (In re 
12

I.J., supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 773.) We review the whole record in 

the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine 

whether it discloses substantial evidence such that a reasonable 

trier of fact could find that the order is appropriate. (Ibid.; 

accord, In re I.C. (2018) 4 Cal.5th 869, 892.) 

b. The Department presented sufficient evidence domestic 

violence between Aaron and Jessica placed the 

children at substantial risk of serious physical harm

Exposure to domestic violence may serve as the basis for a 

jurisdiction finding under section 300, subdivision (b)(1).2 

(In re R.C. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 930, 941.) “‘“Both common 

2 As we recently held in In re Cole L., the “potential for 

accidental injury during parents’ physically violent fights in the 

presence of bystander children,” without more, will not satisfy 

the statutory requirement for dependency jurisdiction based on 

substantial risk of nonaccidental injury under section 300, 

subdivision (a). (In re Cole L. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 591, 603; but 

see In re Nathan E. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 114, 122 [“[w]e firmly 

reject mother’s contention that domestic violence cannot be the 

basis for juvenile court jurisdiction under section 300, 

subdivision (a)”].) However, because substantial evidence 

supports the juvenile court’s findings as to Aaron on the 

section 300, subdivision (b)(1), count, we need not consider his

challenge to the court’s subdivision (a) finding. (See In re D.P., 

supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at p. 917; In re J.C., supra, 

233 Cal.App.4th at p. 4; see also In re I.J., supra, 56 Cal.4th at 

p. 773 [“‘[w]hen 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 re Alexis E. 

(2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 451 [same].)
13

sense and expert opinion indicate spousal abuse is detrimental to 

children.”’” (Id. at p. 942; see In re S.O., supra, 103 Cal.App.4th 

at pp. 460-461 [“‘[domestic violence in the same household where 

children are living is neglect; it is a failure to protect [them] from 

the substantial risk of encountering the violence and suffering 

serious physical harm or illness from it’”]; see also In re T.V.

(2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 126, 135 [“[e]ven though [the child] had 

not been physically harmed, the cycle of violence between the 

parents constituted a failure to protect her”].)

Aaron argues the evidence did not establish his behavior 

placed the children at risk because Vanessa was “the aggressor 

and sole combatant” and he was the “victim fending off a violent 

attack by a person who placed a knife to his throat.” This 

argument disregards the conflicting evidence Aaron did not 

merely act in self-defense but was aggressive toward Vanessa. 

While Vanessa’s accounts of the incident were not entirely 

consistent, in one of her interviews she stated Aaron and his 

brothers ganged up on her and Aaron pushed her against the 

wall and choked her before she grabbed the kitchen knife. This 

account of the incident amply supports a finding Aaron was an 

aggressor during the fight. Even if the court credited an 

alternate version of events, it was undisputed Aaron refused to 

return Vanessa’s phone and the fight lasted for several minutes, 

progressing through various rooms and outside into the parking 

lot. This evidence supports the reasonable inference Aaron at the 

very least prolonged the altercation. 

Aaron also argues the evidence did not establish the 

children were at current risk of harm by the time of the 

jurisdiction hearing because the fight had been an isolated 

incident and the violence was not likely to continue. We agree 
14

with Aaron that a single domestic violence incident, even if 

considered with another episode from nine years earlier, may not 

be sufficient to support a finding of ongoing domestic violence or 

a history of such violence. However, in certain circumstances one 

episode of domestic violence reasonably establishes a current risk 

of harm to the children. (In re J.N. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1010, 

1025-1026.) “In evaluating risk based upon a single episode of 

endangering conduct, a juvenile court should consider the nature 

of the conduct and all surrounding circumstances. It should also 

consider the present circumstances, which might include, among 

other things, evidence of the parent’s current understanding of 

and attitude toward the past conduct that endangered a child, or 

participation in educational programs, or other steps taken, by 

the parent to address the problematic conduct in the interim.” 

(Ibid.) 

Here, the recent episode of domestic violence was a 

significant one involving one parent threatening the other with a 

knife in front of their daughter. Despite the length of the 

confrontation neither Aaron nor Vanessa expressed any 

contemporaneous concern for Serenity’s safety or well-being—she 

was removed from the room by her uncle rather than the 

protective actions of either parent. While both parents stated 

they were willing to pursue therapy and/or counseling, neither 

exhibited meaningful insight into his or her role in the 

altercation. Aaron stated the argument “escalated,” but did not 

appear to take any responsibility for the part he played in that 

escalation. Likewise, Vanessa said she had “gone too far,” but it 

was not clear which actions she realized were inappropriate or 

that she understood how dangerous her behavior had been. 

Aaron’s filing for dissolution of marriage and the parents’ ability 
15

to abide by the stay away order may mitigate the risk of future 

harm to the children, but a significant risk nonetheless remained. 

There were conflicting reports as to whether Aaron and Vanessa 

intended to reconcile. At the very least, it was undisputed 

Vanessa wished to continue the relationship. Given that Aaron 

and Vanessa’s separation had not prevented them from being 

sexually intimate and engaging in domestic violence previously, 

it was reasonable for the court to infer there was a continuing 

risk they would have contact in the future. Under these 

circumstances, the single episode of domestic violence was 

sufficient to support a finding the children were at risk of harm 

at the time of the jurisdiction hearing. (Cf. In re Cole (2021) 

70 Cal.App.5th 591, 603 [physical danger to children was 

minimal where domestic violence incident “involved, at most, 

some pushing and grabbing . . . and took place outside the 

presence of the children”].)

3. The Juvenile Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion by 

Continuing Its Jurisdiction at the Disposition Hearing

Aaron contends the juvenile court erred by failing to 

terminate dependency jurisdiction over Serenity and Levi at the 

conclusion of the disposition hearing. Rather than place the 

children in both parents’ custody with supervision, Aaron argues, 

the court should have terminated jurisdiction with an order 

granting sole physical custody to Aaron.

Once the juvenile court finds a basis to assume jurisdiction 

over a child, “the court is then required to hear evidence on the 

question of the proper disposition for the child.” (In re Destiny D.

(2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 197, 205.) “Typically, once the child has 

been adjudged to be a dependent child pursuant to section 360, 

subdivision (d), the juvenile court determines what services the 
16

child and family need to be reunited and free from court 

supervision.” (Ibid.) However, at the disposition hearing the 

court is not required to continue dependency jurisdiction over the 

child and order the parents to participate in services. Instead, 

the court “retains the discretion in an appropriate case to 

terminate its jurisdiction at the close of a disposition hearing 

when it finds services and continued court supervision are not 

necessary to protect the child.” (Id. at p. 208.) But termination 

of jurisdiction at the disposition hearing should not be the norm. 

“To the contrary, it will be an unusual case when protections 

imposed at disposition will be sufficient to permit the conclusion 

that termination is appropriate.” (Id. at p. 211 [“[j]urisdiction 

should not be terminated unless the court concludes services and 

ongoing supervision are not necessary to protect the child”].)

We review the juvenile court’s decision whether to 

terminate jurisdiction at the disposition hearing for abuse of 

discretion. (See In re Destiny D., supra, 15 Cal.App.5th at p. 213; 

see also Bridget A. v. Superior Court (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 285, 

300-301.)

Here, the court acted well within its discretion in 

determining that continued jurisdiction over Serenity and Levi 

was necessary. It is true Aaron had maintained a safe home for 

the children since the domestic violence incident, obtained a

temporary restraining order and a stay away order, and filed for 

dissolution of the marriage. However, as discussed, the domestic 

violence incident had occurred during a period of estrangement, 

thus it was not assured that Aaron and Vanessa would refrain 

from violent contact absent additional counseling and 

Department supervision, especially in light of the conflicting 

reports as to whether they intended to reconcile. In addition, 
17

because of the stay away order, the Department had handled the 

scheduling and coordination of the children’s visits with Vanessa 

in the four months the case was pending. There was no evidence 

the parents would have immediately been able to peacefully 

coparent without additional supervision. Based on this record, 

the court acted well within its discretion in determining the 

family needed continued supervision.

DISPOSITION

The jurisdiction findings and disposition order are 

affirmed.

PERLUSS, P. J.

We concur:

SEGAL, J.

FEUER, J.