Filed 4/19/21 In re Anthony V. CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(a). This 

opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

In re Anthony V. et. al., Persons

Coming Under the Juvenile 

Court Law.

B306356

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF 

CHILDREN AND FAMILY 

SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ANTHONY V. et. al.,

Minors and Appellants 

Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. 

20CCJP01552

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, Kim Nguyen, Judge. Reversed.

Karen J. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Appellants.

Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant 

County Counsel, Jessica S. Mitchell, Deputy County Counsel, for 

Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

INTRODUCTION

The juvenile court exercised jurisdiction over Anthony V., 

M.V., and B.V. (collectively, “the V. minors”) under Welfare and 

Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), and (j).1 The 

court found the V. minors were at risk of serious physical harm 

due to their mother’s ex-boyfriend’s: (1) violent conduct toward 

their mother; (2) physical abuse of their younger half-sister; and 

(3) alcohol and methamphetamine abuse. 

On appeal, the V. minors contend the jurisdictional 

findings, and therefore the dispositional orders, pertaining to 

them should be reversed because: (1) the court improperly relied

on allegations of physical abuse pertaining only to their two 

younger half-siblings to declare them dependents of the court;

and (2) the record does not reflect that at the time of the 

adjudication hearing, they were at substantial risk of serious 

physical harm due to any inappropriate future conduct on the 

part of their mother’s ex-boyfriend. We agree and reverse. 

BACKGROUND

E.D. (mother) has a total of eight children. Five of her older 

children, J.V., Alexis V., Anthony V., M.V., and B.V., are from her 

prior relationship with Alejandro V. At the time this case was 

initiated in January 2020, J.V. was an adult. Alexis was 17 years 

old, Anthony was 16 years old, M.V. was 14 years old, and B.V.

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare 

and Institutions Code. 
3

was 12 years old. Mother had not had contact with Alejandro in 

11 years.2

M.D. is the father of mother’s two youngest children, A.D. 

and K.D. (collectively, “the D. minors”). At the time this case was 

initiated, A.D. was four years old and K.D. was three years old. 

They lived with mother along with their five older half-siblings in 

a two-bedroom apartment in Pomona. Up until December 2019,

M.D. also resided with the family in the same household. He and 

mother had been in a relationship for the last five years. 

This case arose out of an incident that took place on

December 1, 2019. That evening, mother and M.D. were lying on 

their bed with K.D., when K.D. kicked M.D. in a playful manner. 

M.D. became upset and hit K.D. with an open hand on the left 

thigh, leaving a red mark. K.D. began to cry. At that point, J.V.

came into the bedroom and took her away. 

Mother became angry with M.D. for mistreating K.D. and 

told him not to hit her. In response, M.D. head-butted mother on 

the left side of her forehead. She countered by scratching him on 

the face. M.D. then pushed mother to the ground and kicked her 

on the upper part of her legs four times, causing her to sustain 

bruises. The altercation ended when one of the older children 

entered the bedroom and told them to calm down. 

M.D. left the home on December 3, 2019. He did not return 

until approximately two weeks later, when he came to pick up his 

truck. At that point, mother told M.D. not to return. 

Subsequently, mother went to the Department of Public 

Social Services to seek additional resources. There, she reported 

2 Mother has another adult daughter, G.N. The record does 

not indicate who G.N.’s father is, or where she resided 

throughout the underlying dependency proceedings. 
4

the December 1 incident to a social worker, who encouraged her 

to file a police report. Consequently, on January 7, 2020, mother 

reported the incident to the Pomona Police Department. Her 

police report prompted a referral to the Department of Children 

and Family Services (Department), which was received the next 

day. 

During the Department’s initial investigation, mother 

disclosed two other incidents where M.D. exhibited violent 

behavior in the household. The first took place in October 2019, 

when she and M.D. got into an argument in their bedroom. Alexis 

intervened and tried to defend her, at which point M.D. grabbed 

him by the neck. They got into a fight, and mother had to 

separate them. The second incident occurred in November 2019, 

when M.D. forced mother to have sexual intercourse with him

against her will, causing her injury requiring medical attention. 

Mother also reported that Alexis, who used to work with 

M.D., told her he saw M.D. using crystal methamphetamine at 

work. Although mother stated she had not seen M.D. with any 

drug paraphernalia at home, she noticed he was more irritable 

and was not sleeping as much.

On March 20, 2020, the Department filed a petition on 

behalf of all six of mother’s minor children under section 300, 

subdivisions (a), (b)(1), and (j). The petition alleged the children 

were at substantial risk of serious physical harm due to: (1) 

M.D.’s violent conduct toward mother and her failure to protect 

from his conduct (counts a-1 and b-1); and (2) M.D.’s 

methamphetamine abuse and mother’s failure to protect from his 

substance abuse (count b-3). The petition further alleged the D. 

minors were at serious risk of physical harm due to M.D.’s 

physical abuse of K.D. during the December 1 incident (counts a-
5

2, b-2, and j-1). On this particular point, however, the petition’s 

allegations made no mention of Alexis, Anthony, M.V., or B.V. 

Throughout the five-month period leading up to the 

adjudication hearing held on May 7, 2020, mother, J.V., Alexis, 

and the V. minors told the Department they had not seen, spoken 

to, or otherwise heard from M.D. since he left the home in 

December 2019. Mother reported she was unaware of M.D.’s 

whereabouts, and that the phone number she previously used to 

contact him had been disconnected. The Department made 

several efforts to obtain contact information for M.D. and 

Alejandro to notify them of the dependency proceedings. Its 

attempts ultimately were unsuccessful. 

At the adjudication hearing, the Department informed the 

court that it arrived at an agreement with mother to amend the 

petition by striking the allegations pertaining to her, thereby 

rendering her a non-offending parent. Subsequently, the juvenile 

court dismissed Alexis from the petition at his request, as he 

would be turning 18 years old in the next week. With respect to 

the V. minors and the D. minors, the court sustained all the 

counts as amended,3 and declared them dependents of the court 

under section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), and (j).

Proceeding to disposition, the juvenile court removed the 

children from their respective fathers and placed them with 

mother under Department supervision. Mother’s case plan 

pertaining to the V. minors required her to participate in 

individual counseling and a support group for domestic violence 

3 In addition to dismissing Alexis from the petition, the 

juvenile court amended count b-3 to “conform to proof” and state 

the children were at risk of harm due to M.D.’s alcohol abuse in 

addition to his abuse of methamphetamine. 
6

victims. The V. minors were ordered to attend individual 

counseling and conjoint family counseling. 

The V. minors timely appealed. 

DISCUSSION

I. Applicable Law and Standard of Review 

Under section 300, subdivision (a), the juvenile court may 

exercise jurisdiction over a child if it finds “[t]he 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 or guardian.” Pursuant to section 300, 

subdivision (b)(1), the juvenile court may exercise jurisdiction 

over a child if it finds “[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[.]” 

Lastly, per section 300, subdivision (j), the court may exercise 

jurisdiction over a child upon finding “[t]he child’s sibling has 

been abused or neglected, as defined in subdivision (a), (b), (d), 

(e), or (i), and there is a substantial risk that the child will be 

abused or neglected, as defined in those subdivisions.” 

“‘The basic question under section 300 is whether 

circumstances at the time of the hearing subject the minor to the 

defined risk of harm.’ [Citation.]” (In re J.N. (2010) 181 

Cal.App.4th 1010, 1022, italics added.) “While past harmful 

conduct is relevant to the current risk of future physical harm to 

a child [citations], the evidence as a whole must be considered. 

‘[P]revious acts of neglect, standing alone, do not establish a 
7

substantial risk of harm; there must be some reason beyond mere 

speculation to believe they will reoccur. [Citations.]’ [Citations.]”

(Id. at p. 1025.)

We review a juvenile court’s jurisdictional orders for 

substantial evidence. (In re Yolanda L. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 987, 

992.) Under this standard, “we view the record in the light most 

favorable to the juvenile court’s determinations, drawing all 

reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the juvenile 

court’s findings and orders.” (Ibid.) “We do not reweigh the 

evidence, evaluate the credibility of witnesses, or resolve 

evidentiary conflicts. [Citation.]” (In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 

Cal.App.4th 212, 228.) 

“Substantial evidence must be of ponderable legal 

significance. It is not synonymous with ‘any’ evidence. [Citation.] 

The evidence must be reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid 

value. [Citation.]” (In re Dakota H., supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 

228.) “The appellant has the burden of showing there is no 

evidence of a sufficiently substantial nature to support the 

finding or order. [Citations.]” (Ibid.) “‘ . . . “The ultimate test is 

whether it is reasonable for a trier of fact to make the ruling in 

question in light of the whole record.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (In 

re Yolanda L., supra, 7 Cal.App.5th at p. 992.)

II. Analysis 

The V. minors contend the juvenile court’s jurisdictional 

findings should be reversed. They advance two arguments in 

support of this position. We address each in turn.

First, the V. minors contend the court erred by exercising 

jurisdiction over them based on counts a-2, b-2, and j-1, which 
8

pertained to M.D.’s physical abuse of K.D. They argue 

jurisdiction was improper based on those counts because the 

allegations in support thereof only pertained to the D. minors, 

and did not mention the V. minors. We agree. 

As the V. minors correctly observe, the Department did not 

allege they were at risk of harm due to M.D.’s physical abuse of 

K.D. The amended petition’s only allegations on this point were 

pled in counts a-2, b-2, and j-1, which were identical and read as 

follows: “On 12/1/19, the children [A.D.] and [K.D.]’s father, 

[M.D.], physically abused the child [K.D.] The father struck the 

child [K.D.]’s left thigh with the father’s hand resulting in the 

child sustaining a red mark to the child’s thigh. Such physical 

abuse of the children by the father caused the child unreasonable 

pain and suffering. The physical abuse of the child by the father 

endangers the child’s physical health and safety and places the 

child and the child’s sibling [A.D.] at serious risk of physical 

harm.” (Italics added.) 

At the adjudication hearing, however, the juvenile court 

found all of mother’s minor children, including the V. minors, 

were at risk of harm due to M.D.’s physical abuse of K.D. 

Specifically, in sustaining counts a-2, b-2, and j-1, the court 

stated: “[K.D.] is a very, very, very young child, and clearly [M.D.] 

has physically abused her and there was a red mark. I think that 

was serious abuse, given her very young age, and I think given 

all of the obvious . . . violent acts done by [M.D.], there is an 

ongoing risk of harm. I think the siblings remain at [risk of] harm 

as well, and so the Court will sustain [those counts].”4 (Italics

4 The Department states it “reads the case differently” and 

asserts the juvenile court made jurisdictional findings pertaining

solely to the D. minors when it sustained counts a-2, b-2, and j-1.
9

added.) In so doing, the juvenile court erred by making

jurisdictional findings pertaining to the V. minors based on 

allegations not found in the petition. (See In re Andrew S. (2016) 

2 Cal.App.5th 536, 544 [reversing jurisdictional finding based on

the father’s failure to protect his children from the mother’s 

physical abuse because “the Department never made any such 

allegation,” and therefore the father “had no notice or opportunity 

to defend against it. [Citation.]”].) 

Next, the V. minors argue that the other jurisdictional 

findings pertaining to them are not supported by substantial 

evidence. Specifically, they contend the record does not establish 

that at the time of the adjudication hearing, they were at risk of

serious physical harm due to M.D.’s violent conduct toward 

mother or substance abuse. For the reasons discussed below, we 

again agree with the V. minors’ argument. 

First, the evidence demonstrates mother is not going to 

continue her relationship with M.D. Mother reported the 

relationship is over, and that she has no plans to reunify with 

him. She acknowledged M.D. was overly controlling, as he did not 

allow her to work, go shopping alone, or get dressed up. She 

In the Department’s view, the record indicates “the court 

misspoke, or the reporter misheard when stating ‘siblings’ in [the 

findings on] the physical abuse counts.” We conclude the V. 

minors’ construction of the record is accurate. The minute orders 

from the adjudication hearing state the V. minors were declared 

dependents of the court under section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), 

and (j). The amended petition’s only allegations under 

subdivision (j), however, related to M.D.’s physical abuse of K.D.

Accordingly, the record suggests the juvenile court did, in fact, 

rely on those allegations in exercising jurisdiction over the V. 

minors.
10

related she “feels relieved now that [M.D.] is gone.” Since ending 

the relationship, mother has been able to secure a job, and 

reported that, overall, she “‘feel[s] so much better[.]’”

Second, the record reflects M.D. is not going to reside with 

mother and the V. minors in the future. As noted above, in the 

five-month period following his departure from the home in midDecember 2019, M.D. has not returned. Since then, M.D. has not 

seen or had any contact with mother or any of her children. His

whereabouts were unknown at the time of the adjudication 

hearing, and mother reported she did not have updated contact 

information for him. Mother also related she would not allow 

M.D. to return to the household, that she has told all of her 

children they cannot see their fathers, and that she planned to 

move to a new home. In light of this evidence, we reject the 

Department’s contention that M.D. will likely “find his way back 

into [the family’s] lives” because he and mother have two young

children together. The Department’s assertion lacks evidentiary 

support, and is nothing more than “pure speculation” about 

M.D.’s future conduct, which cannot support a finding of 

dependency. (See In re Steve W. (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 10, 22-23.) 

Lastly, the evidence shows mother has been cooperative 

with the Department and expressed willingness to participate in 

services, including domestic violence classes, mental health 

services, and therapy. Following the December 1 incident, she 

initially reached out to the Department of Public Social Services 

for assistance, and agreed to file a police report per the social 

worker’s recommendation. When the Department got involved, 

mother agreed to a safety plan. She has been forthright when 

speaking with the Department, the police, and representatives 

from other agencies. Mother has also expressed willingness to 
11

participate in a Child and Family Team Meeting, and agreed to 

schedule the meeting when it is appropriate to hold it in-person, 

given the safety concerns presented by the COVID-19 pandemic. 

In summary, the evidence fails to establish that at the time 

of the adjudication hearing, the V. minors were at substantial 

risk of serious physical harm due to any inappropriate conduct by 

M.D. (See In re J.N., supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1022, 1025.) 

Accordingly, we reverse the court’s jurisdictional findings 

pertaining to them. Those findings therefore cannot support the

dispositional orders concerning the V. minors. (See In re Andrew 

S., supra, 2 Cal.App.5th at pp. 544, 548.) Consequently, we 

reverse those orders as well. 
12

DISPOSITION

The jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders

pertaining to Anthony V., M.V., and B.V. are reversed. 

CURREY, J. 

We concur: 

MANELLA, P.J. 

COLLINS, J.