Filed 12/22/21 In re A.S. CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re A.S., A Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

2d Juv. No. B311678

(Juv. Ct. No. 21JV00073)

(Santa Barbara County)

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY 

CHILD WELFARE SERVICES,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.M. et al.,

 Appellants.

M.M. (Mother) and E.C. (Father) appeal the juvenile court’s 

jurisdiction and disposition orders regarding their baby, A.S. 

(Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subds. (f) & (j) [Mother], (b)(1)

[Father].)1 We affirm.

1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code.
2

This appeal involves orders by the juvenile court 

concerning A.S., born to Mother and Father in 2021. 

Approximately five years earlier, Mother, then an adolescent,

secretly gave birth to a baby at home and murdered the newborn 

by cutting his throat. The juvenile court later adjudged Mother a 

ward of the court based upon a finding that she committed second 

degree murder. We affirmed on appeal. (In re M.S. (2019) 32 

Cal.App.5th 1177.) 

Here, following the filing of a dependency petition by Santa 

Barbara County Child Welfare Services (CWS) and contested 

hearings thereafter, the juvenile court sustained allegations of 

the petition and ordered removal of A.S. The court also ordered 

that Mother and Father receive family reunification services to 

address Mother’s mental health issues and to accept and 

understand the significance of the circumstances of the prior 

child’s death. The parents now appeal these orders.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In 2021, Marian Medical Center staff contacted CWS and 

reported that Mother gave birth to another baby. Hospital 

employees knew that Mother had killed her first baby five years 

earlier. Employees advised CWS that Mother and Father had 

given the baby the same first name as their deceased child. 

The CWS social worker met Mother and Father at the 

hospital. Mother reported that she had been released from 

juvenile confinement after serving time in juvenile hall and 13 

months in a group home. Father stated to the social worker that 

Mother’s mental health had improved and that he had no 

concerns for their baby. At the time, Mother and Father were 

living with the maternal grandparents.
3

CWS then obtained a protective custody warrant for the 

baby to temporarily remove him from Mother’s and Father’s 

custody. Following a contested detention hearing, the juvenile 

court ordered that the baby be detained. In ruling, the juvenile 

court judge stated: “The circumstances of the prior murder are 

just too concerning to have no concern about the safety of the 

child.”

On March 2, 2021, CWS filed a dependency petition 

alleging that the baby was at risk of serious physical harm, 

Father could not protect the baby from Mother, and Mother 

caused the death of the baby’s sibling. (§ 300, subd. (a), (b), (f).)

On March 24, 2021, the juvenile court held a contested 

jurisdiction hearing. The court received into evidence the CWS 

detention and jurisdiction reports and testimony from the CWS 

social worker, Father, and Mother, among others. The court also 

took judicial notice of Mother’s section 602 wardship file.

The social worker testified that she received a hotline 

referral that Mother attempted suicide in 2018. Father testified 

that he did not believe that Mother intentionally killed their first 

child but acknowledged that Mother had suffered from untreated 

mental illness. He stated that it is “kind of hard to believe that 

she could have done something like that.” Father also testified 

that he now lived separately from Mother and was prepared to 

care for A.S.

Mother testified that she had engaged in extensive mental 

health therapy during residential treatment and currently 

continued to participate in therapy. Mother stated that she had 

prenatal medical care and that she and Father had looked 

forward to their baby’s birth. 
4

Following argument, the juvenile court sustained the 

allegations of section 300, subdivisions (f) and (j), regarding 

Mother, and the allegation of section 300, subdivision (b) 

regarding Father. The allegation in the amended dependency 

petition regarding Father stated that Mother and Father had 

spoken only a little regarding the death of the first baby but that 

Father believed Mother had changed and was “different.” In 

ruling, the juvenile court judge referred to Father’s “concerning 

lack of appreciation for risk to the child” given that Father 

believed the death of the baby was “accidental.” 

On April 12, 2021, the juvenile court held a contested 

disposition hearing. The court received evidence of the CWS 

disposition report and the psychological evaluations performed by 

Doctors Laura Beltran (Mother and Father) and Carolyn Murphy 

(Mother only). Beltran opined that Father minimized Mother’s 

mental health issues and her past violent act. She also opined 

that Mother minimized her mental health problems and that she 

may be superficially engaging in psychological treatment. 

Murphy opined that Mother presented a low to low-moderate risk 

for future violence and that she did not minimize killing her 

baby. 

The CWS investigating social worker testified that Mother 

and Father were now living together and that they tended to 

minimize the risks posed by Mother to A.S. For this reason, CWS 

was recommending parent education classes and psychological 

therapy for the parents. 

The juvenile court then found by clear and convincing 

evidence that A.S. would be at substantial risk of harm if 

returned to his parents and there were no reasonable means to 

protect him without removal. The court removed A.S. from 
5

Mother’s and Father’s custody and placed him with the maternal 

grandparents.2 The court also ordered supervised visits and 

family reunification services for Mother and Father.

On appeal, Father challenges the jurisdiction findings 

made pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b)(1), and further 

asserts that insufficient evidence supports removal of the child 

from his custody. Mother joins Father’s brief pursuant to 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.200(a)(5).

DISCUSSION

I.

Father argues that the jurisdiction finding of section 300, 

subdivision (b)(1) does not rest upon sufficient evidence. He 

points out that he has never had an opportunity to supervise or 

protect A.S. and thus there is no evidence of risk of harm to the 

child.

In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to support a 

jurisdiction or disposition order, we review the entire record to 

determine if the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom 

support the orders. (In re Cole L. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 591, 

602.) We do not reweigh the evidence or reassess the credibility 

of witnesses. (Ibid.) Although substantial evidence is a 

deferential standard, it is not “toothless.” (In re I.C. (2018) 4 

Cal.5th 869, 892 [evidence supporting jurisdiction finding must 

be considered in light of the whole record].)

Sufficient evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding 

pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b)(1). Section 300, 

subdivision (b)(1) requires the court to find that there is “a

substantial risk that the child will suffer[] serious physical harm 

2 Mother and Father no longer live with the maternal

grandparents.
6

or illness” as a result of the failure or inability of the parent to 

supervise or protect the child. Here Father lacked insight into 

Mother’s mental illness and the circumstances of the murder of 

the first baby. Father stated that the baby’s death was an 

accident and that Mother did not intentionally kill him. Father

also stated that he had no concerns about Mother’s mental 

health. Doctor Beltran opined that Father was “unfit to care for 

and protect the child at this time” due to Father’s lack of 

understanding of the murder of the baby as well as his lack of 

knowledge regarding Mother’s mental illness. In ruling, the 

juvenile court judge stated that the evidence “doesn’t fill us with 

assurance . . . [that Father] would be adequately protective of the 

child when [Mother] wishes to visit.” This evidence and 

reasonable inferences therefrom support the jurisdiction finding. 

II.

Father contends that insufficient clear and convincing 

evidence supports the disposition order. He asserts that he is a 

nonoffending parent and that the juvenile court speculated that 

he might violate the court’s order regarding Mother’s supervised 

visits.

Section 361, subdivision (c)(1) permits a child to be 

removed from a parent’s home if there exists clear and convincing 

evidence of a “substantial danger to the physical health, safety, 

protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor if the 

minor were returned home, and there are no reasonable means 

by which the minor’s physical health can be protected without 

removing the minor” from a parent’s physical custody. Removal 

may be appropriate even if the parent is not dangerous and the 

child has not yet been harmed. (In re Francisco D. (2014) 230 
7

Cal.App.4th 73, 83.) The focus of the dependency proceeding is to 

prevent harm to the child, not punish the parent. (Ibid.)

Father’s arguments are unavailing because he is not a nonoffending parent and his belief that the prior baby’s murder was 

an accident presents credible evidence of current risk of harm. 

Father found it “hard to believe” that Mother could have 

intentionally killed their baby. Doctor Beltran opined that 

Father was unfit to care for and protect A.S. because he 

minimized Mother’s mental health problems and prior violent 

act. The court properly found that Father’s lack of appreciation 

for the circumstances of the baby’s murder and Mother’s mental 

health problems posed a substantial risk of harm to A.S.

DISPOSITION

The orders are affirmed.

GILBERT, P. J.

We concur:

YEGAN, J.

TANGEMAN, J.
8

Jed Beebe, Judge

Superior Court County of Santa Barbara

______________________________

Jesse F. Rodriguez, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant M.M.

Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant E.C.

Rachel Van Mullem, County Counsel, Lisa A. Rothstein, 

Deputy Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.