Filed 3/8/23 In re Richard G. CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re RICHARD G., JR., et al., 

Persons Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law.

______________________________

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

R.G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

B318760 

Los Angeles County

Nos. 21CCJP04979A-C

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Daniel Zeke Zeidler, Judge. Affirmed.

David M. Thompson, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
2

Dawyn R. Harrison, Interim County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, and Veronica Randazzo, Deputy 

County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________

The juvenile court sustained domestic violence and 

substance abuse allegations against a father, allegations he does 

not challenge on appeal. 

The court also sustained amended allegations the father 

does challenge, allegations he “physically abused and/or 

inappropriately physically disciplined” his son and 

“inappropriately physically disciplined” his elder daughter. The 

court assumed dependency jurisdiction under section 300, 

subdivision (a), which applies where a parent inflicts serious 

physical harm nonaccidentally on a child or there is a substantial 

risk of this harm. The court also assumed jurisdiction under 

subdivisions (b) and (j) based on these allegations. All statutory 

references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

The father asks us to strike or reverse these jurisdictional 

findings and argues his appeal is justiciable. We assume 

justiciability and reach the merits. (See In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal. 

5th 266, 286 [it may serve the interest of justice to review a 

parent’s appeal “where a parent does not challenge all 

jurisdictional findings, but only one finding involving particularly 

severe conduct”].) 

The parties agree we review for substantial evidence. (See 

In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773 (I.J.).)

The father says substantial evidence is missing because he 

simply spanked his children, which is reasonable and legal 

parental discipline that does not give rise to dependency 

jurisdiction. (See § 300, subd. (j) [reasonable methods of parental 
3

discipline not prohibited] & subd. (a) [serious physical harm “does 

not include reasonable and age-appropriate spanking to the 

buttocks if there is no evidence of serious physical injury”].)

This argument is incorrect. 

We take stock of “the manner in which a less serious injury 

was inflicted, a history of repeated inflictions of injuries” and 

“other actions by the parent . . . that indicate the child is at risk 

of serious physical harm.” (§ 300, subd. (a).)

There is evidence the father spanked both his son and his 

elder daughter with enough force to leave marks on their bottoms 

and to make them cry. This happened “on multiple occasions.” 

The children were young: just six and five at the time the 

petition was filed. 

The son admitted his parents “sometimes” hit his sisters. 

There is evidence the father “smacked” his son in the face 

on several occasions and left the boy’s face bruised once. 

In seeking a domestic violence restraining order, the 

mother wrote: “[I’m] scared for [ ] mine and my children life. 

[H]e is very Dangerous. [I’m] not sure if he is on Drugs, but I 

want to get away for the better of me and my children. [H]e hits 

me and my kids he talks to us very Disrespectfully. I just [don’t]

feel safe. My kids [don’t] feel safe.” One time, the mother wrote, 

she returned home to find her son “all bruised and beat on”; the 

father admitted to “spank[ing] him so bad that his face was 

bruised.” 

There also is evidence the parents were violent with each 

other in front of the children. (See In re Nathan E. (2021) 61 

Cal.App.5th 114, 121–122 [domestic violence between parents 

can be the basis for jurisdiction under section 300, subd. (a)].) 

The children would grow scared, cry, and try to hide during these 
4

episodes. The mother said the father yelled at her, cursed her, 

beat her, and once dragged her up and down the floor. The 

Department noted “a nine-year history of unresolved domestic 

violence” between these parents. “The mother stated that the 

children have seen the father [ ] slap and punch her in the face, 

throw her to [the] ground, push her and she would fight back to 

defend herself.” The father admitted a domestic violence 

conviction and a “history of physically fighting” in the children’s 

presence. He confirmed “he and the mother have punched, 

slapped and physically assaulted each other during arguments.” 

Sometimes the parents would throw objects, like beer bottles and 

furniture, at each other. 

The father’s substance use appeared to exacerbate the 

situation. The mother caught the father using cocaine and 

learned he also was using methamphetamine. She noticed his 

behavior grow more aggressive and violent during this time. She 

could tell he was using meth from “[t]he look on his eyes. He 

looks evil. He is not himself.” 

At various points, family members including the father 

denied certain violence. For example, the father denied leaving 

marks on his children after spanking them and denied hitting 

any of them in the face—although he did admit he “may have 

tugged on their eye to get their attention.” We disregard denials 

like this in a substantial evidence review. (I.J., supra, 56 Cal.4th 

at p. 773 [contradicted evidence suffices if it is substantial]; id.

[appellate court draws all reasonable inferences from the 

evidence to support the findings and does not reweigh the 

evidence or exercise independent judgment].) 

Substantial evidence supports the challenged jurisdictional 

findings as to the father. A reasonable fact finder could conclude 
5

the father’s violence would escalate and placed his children at 

substantial risk of serious physical harm. (§ 300, subds. (a) & (j).)

The father cites cases involving either egregious incidents 

or an isolated incident of physical abuse by a parent. Those cases 

do not invalidate the challenged findings.

The father also states he is challenging certain 

jurisdictional findings as to the mother. The father has forfeited 

this challenge by failing to develop an argument. (See Benach v. 

County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852.) 

DISPOSITION

We affirm the juvenile court’s February 23, 2022 order.

WILEY, J.

We concur: 

STRATTON, P. J. 

GRIMES, J.