Filed 7/27/21 In re Izaiah V. CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).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 THREE

In re Izaiah V. et al., Persons

Coming Under the Juvenile 

Court Law.

B308646

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.V. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No.

20CCJP03740A, B

APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, Emma Castro, Temporary Judge. Affirmed in part, 

dismissed in part.

Darlene Azevedo Kelly, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant A.V.

Anne E. Fragasso, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant V.R.
2

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

Assistant County Counsel, and David Michael Miller, Deputy 

County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________________________

INTRODUCTION

A.V. (father) and V.R. (mother) appeal from the court’s 

jurisdiction findings and disposition orders declaring their son 

and daughter dependents of the court under Welfare and 

Institutions Code1 section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b).2 The 

parents contend insufficient evidence supports the court’s 

jurisdiction findings that their mutual domestic violence places 

the children at risk of physical harm. The parents also challenge 

the court’s order removing the children from their custody, but 

that issue is now moot after the court returned the children to the 

parents’ home at the first review hearing. As we explain, 

substantial evidence supports the court’s jurisdiction findings.

We therefore dismiss the challenge to the removal order and 

otherwise affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. Initiation of Dependency Proceedings

Mother and father have been in a relationship for about 

nine years, but they aren’t married and don’t always live 

together. They have two children: the son was born in 2017 and 

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code. 

2 In their appellate briefs, mother and father join in each other’s 

arguments to the extent they are not inconsistent to each other’s 

position.
3

the daughter was born in 2019. The family came to the attention 

of the Department of Children and Family Services (Department)

in May 2020, after a referral alleged mother and father engaged 

in domestic violence on several occasions. 

The first incident occurred in September 2019, after

mother, father, and their son went to the beach. While they were 

walking to the car, mother and father got into an argument. 

Father started calling mother a “ ‘bitch’ ” and a “ ‘cunt’ ” in front 

of their son. Later, while mother was in the driver’s seat of her 

car, father pulled her right hand off the steering wheel and said, “ 

‘Fuck you stupid bitch, I fucking hate you, just wait until we get 

home.’ ” Father continued to scream at and belittle mother, 

causing their son to cry “uncontrollably.”

Once they got home, father kept yelling at mother in front 

of the children. At one point, father told mother: “ ‘You are a 

stupid and worthless cunt just wait to see what I do to you.’ ” The 

son continued to cry and appeared “visibly frightened” of father. 

When the police arrived, the son was still “crying uncontrollably” 

and looked to be in a “great deal of stress and panicking.” 

Mother told the police that there were “numerous previous 

domestic violence incidents, but this was the first time it has 

been reported.” Mother also told the police that father abuses 

OxyContin and other prescription drugs and he becomes 

“extremely violent” when he uses them. The police arrested 

father for child cruelty, but he was never prosecuted.

In January 2020, mother and father got into a fight at the 

maternal grandmother’s home. Mother scratched father’s neck, 

wrist, and knee, and she bit his chest twice. Father claimed 

mother woke him up while he was sleeping on the couch and 

started hitting him. Mother told the police that father had 
4

attacked her, so she bit and pushed him to defend herself. The 

police arrested mother. 

In May 2020, mother and father were staying at the 

paternal grandmother’s home. When mother came home from 

work, father accused her of being drunk and started arguing with 

her. After they went into the bedroom, father told mother he 

didn’t want her around the children while she was drinking, and 

he tried to take her car keys from her. Mother became upset, 

tried to take her keys back, and started striking father. She hit 

him with her open hands, scratching his arms and neck. She also 

bit his chest, leaving bite marks and a bruise. The police 

responded and arrested mother. In the police report, one of the 

responding officers noted that the children were inside the home 

while mother and father were fighting.

The Department interviewed the family in June 2020. 

Mother denied any incidents of domestic violence between her 

and father. Mother claimed the May 2020 incident was “nothing 

physical” and denied being under the influence of alcohol at the 

time. She accused the officers who responded to that incident of 

fabricating many of the details in their report, including one of 

the officer’s statements that the children were home during the 

parents’ dispute. According to mother, the children were staying 

with their maternal grandparents. When the social worker told 

mother that the police reports from the prior incidents

contradicted her statements, mother replied, “ ‘you have the 

report, why do you need to ask me[?]’ ”

Father was also recalcitrant throughout his interview. He 

refused to discuss the allegations of domestic violence, aside from 

claiming the police lied about what occurred during the 

September 2019 and May 2020 incidents. When the social worker 
5

explained that the Department was simply following up on an 

abuse referral, father replied, “ ‘do you have kids, has anyone 

come to your house, you sound like you’re drunk.’ ”

The children’s maternal grandfather told the Department 

that mother and father “fight over small stuff and their fighting 

is arguing,” but he had never seen them engage in domestic 

violence. According to both maternal grandparents, the children 

were “with their mother” at the paternal grandparents’ home 

during the May 2020 incident.

The Department also interviewed one of the officers who 

responded to the May 2020 incident. He confirmed that the 

children were with their parents at the time, but they did not 

witness the argument. 

In July 2020, the Department tried to interview the 

parents again in person. Father filmed the conversation. Mother 

and father continued to accuse the Department of fabricating the 

domestic violence allegations. Father told the social worker, “ ‘the 

children are not abused, what the [social worker] is doing is 

bullshit, [the social worker] is a liar.’ ” Father refused to let the 

social worker take photographs of the children and, as the social 

worker was leaving, father said, “ ‘this is bullshit, I’m going to 

make a few calls, fuck him.’ ” 

The Department filed a dependency petition on the 

children’s behalf. The Department alleged mother and father 

have a history of engaging in domestic violence in front of the 

children, including the incidents in September 2019 and May 

2020, which placed the children at serious risk of physical harm 

(§ 300, subds. (a) & (b); a-1 and b-1 allegations). The Department 

also alleged father is a current abuser of OxyContin and 

prescription medication and that mother failed to protect the 
6

children by allowing father to be around them while abusing 

drugs (§ 300, subd. (b); b-2 allegation).

At the detention hearing, the court found father is the 

children’s presumed parent. The court also found the Department 

alleged a prima facie case under section 300, subdivisions (a) and 

(b). The court detained the children from their parents’ custody 

and granted mother unmonitored visits and father monitored 

visits with the children. The court also ordered the Department 

to provide the parents “predisposition” reunification services, 

including weekly drug testing and referrals to parenting and 

domestic violence programs.

2. Jurisdiction and Disposition

The Department interviewed the family again in 

September 2020.

Mother blamed the police’s involvement in the September 

2019 incident on the children’s maternal grandfather. According 

to mother, father had gotten drunk and began “talking out of his 

ass,” so the grandfather called the police. Mother denied that 

father became violent or threatened her with violence. She also 

claimed the responding officers “lied” about her son being afraid 

of father. The children were not present during the incident, and 

the son only arrived when father was being arrested, which made 

the child upset. 

Mother didn’t want to discuss the January 2020 incident 

because she didn’t “like to think about it.” Mother admitted she 

bit father, but she only did so because he was “hugging [her] kind 

of tight” and she wanted him to stop. Mother claimed the children 

were with their maternal grandparents during the incident. 

As for the May 2020 incident, mother couldn’t remember 

“exactly what happened” because it was “a long time ago,” but 
7

she claimed no violence was involved. Father believed mother 

was drunk, even though she wasn’t, so they began to argue. 

Mother denied hitting or biting father and told the social worker 

that father’s bite marks were from a prior incident. According to 

mother, the children were staying with the maternal 

grandparents at the time of the argument. The police officer who 

responded to the incident simply assumed the children were with 

their parents.

Father told the Department he was arrested for “arguing” 

with mother during the September 2019 incident. He denied his 

son is afraid of him or that he caused his son to cry 

“uncontrollably,” claiming the child only became upset once the 

police intervened. 

Father acknowledged he and mother got “a little physical” 

during the May 2020 incident, but he claimed it was “not[h]ing 

crazy” and the police got involved only because his sister’s 

partner called law enforcement. He denied mother had been 

drinking before their argument and told the Department that the 

children were with their maternal grandparents.

The paternal grandmother was home during the January 

and May 2020 incidents. She’s never seen mother or father 

consume alcohol and claimed the parents usually “work well 

together,” even though they will sometimes get into “loud” 

arguments. According to the grandmother, the children weren’t 

present during either incident.

During the May 2020 incident, the paternal grandmother 

heard the parents arguing and slamming doors, but she didn’t see 

them hit each other or call each other derogatory names. The

grandmother did, however, see scratch and bite marks on father

before mother called the police. 
8

The maternal grandmother denied any history of domestic 

violence between the parents. She believed they simply have 

disagreements like any other couple. Although the maternal 

grandmother told the Department in June 2020 that the children 

were with the parents during the May 2020 incident, she now 

claimed the children had been with her during all the incidents.

The maternal grandfather had never seen the parents 

argue. He couldn’t remember where the children were during the

May 2020 incident, but he confirmed they were with the parents 

during the September 2019 incident. He claimed the children 

didn’t witness the parents’ argument, however, because they 

were in another room and the son only started crying once the 

police arrived. 

As of early November 2020, mother and father were living 

in a new apartment, away from both sets of grandparents. Each 

parent completed a 16-hour parenting class. Mother was 

participating in individual counseling and had completed several 

sessions with a therapist. Father had enrolled in a domestic 

violence program and individual counseling, but the Department 

couldn’t confirm whether he had started participating in either 

program.

The court held the jurisdiction and disposition hearing in 

November 2020. The court sustained the a-1 and b-1 allegations 

and dismissed the b-2 allegation.3 The court declared the children 

dependents of the court, ordered them removed from their 

parents’ custody, and awarded mother and father reunification 

services.

3 As to the a-1 and b-1 allegations, the court struck from the petition 

language alleging father had been arrested for child cruelty.
9

Mother and father appealed the court’s disposition orders.

In May 2021, the court returned the children to their 

parents’ custody and ordered the Department to provide mother 

and father family maintenance services.

4

DISCUSSION

1. Substantial evidence supports the court’s jurisdiction 

findings. 

A court may exercise dependency jurisdiction over a child

under section 300, subdivision (a), if “[t]he child has suffered, or 

there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious 

physical harm inflicted nonaccidentally ... by the child’s 

parent ... .” A court may also exercise jurisdiction over a child 

under section 300, subdivision (b)(1), if “ ‘[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 ... to adequately supervise or protect the 

child ... .’ ” (In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 624, 629, italics 

omitted.)

A child’s exposure to his or her parents’ domestic violence 

can support jurisdiction under section 300, subdivisions (a) and 

(b), if the parents’ violence causes the child to suffer, or places the 

child at a substantial risk of suffering, serious physical harm. (In 

re Nathan E. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 114, 121–122.) Specifically, 

because domestic violence is nonaccidental, it can support 

jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (a), even if the parents 

do not intend to direct their violence toward the child. (Ibid.)

4 We take judicial notice of the May 4, 2021 minute orders attached to 

father’s letter brief. 
10

To show the child faces a risk of harm at the time of the 

jurisdiction hearing, there “must be some reason beyond mere 

speculation to believe the alleged conduct will recur. [Citation.]” 

(In re James R. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 129, 136.) In determining 

whether conduct is likely to recur, courts may consider evidence 

of the parent’s behavior in the past. (In re N.M. (2011) 197 

Cal.App.4th 159, 165.) A parent’s denial of wrongdoing or failure 

to recognize the negative impact of his or her conduct is also 

relevant to determining risk under section 300. (In re Tania S.

(1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 728, 735, fn. 4.)

We review jurisdiction findings and disposition orders 

removing a child from his or her parent’s custody for substantial 

evidence. (In re E.E. (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 195, 206.) We will 

affirm the findings if they are supported by evidence that is 

reasonable, credible, and of solid value. (In re R.V. (2012) 208 

Cal.App.4th 837, 843.) “We do not evaluate the credibility of 

witnesses, attempt to resolve conflicts in the evidence or 

determine the weight of the evidence. Instead, we draw all 

reasonable inferences in support of the findings, view the record 

favorably to the juvenile court’s order and affirm the order even if 

there is other evidence supporting a contrary finding. [Citations.] 

The appellant has the burden of showing there is no evidence of a 

sufficiently substantial nature to support the findings or order. 

[Citation.]” (Ibid.) 

Substantial evidence supports the court’s jurisdiction 

findings under section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b). The parents 

have an extensive history of domestic violence. In a span of less 

than nine months, they engaged in at least three incidents of 

violence, two of which were in front of the children or while the 

children were in the same home. And, when mother first reported 
11

the violence in September 2019, she told the police that there had 

been “numerous previous [unreported] domestic violence 

incidents.”

That the children were never physically harmed by the 

parents’ violence does not diminish the risk that violence posed to 

them. For instance, father’s conduct during the September 2019 

incident was particularly dangerous. He physically attacked 

mother—pulling her hand from the steering wheel—while 

mother, father, and their son were in mother’s car. It goes 

without saying that parents fighting while their child is inside a

car with them poses a high risk of danger to the child. And, 

during the May 2020 incident, mother struck and bit father while 

the children were home. As numerous courts have explained, the 

nature of domestic violence in the home, by itself, poses a 

specialized risk to children. (See In re R.C. (2012) 210 

Cal.App.4th 930, 941–942 [discussing cases that have held 

spousal violence puts children in a position of physical danger].) 

That’s because the children “ ‘ “could wander into the room where 

[the violence] was occurring and be accidentally hit by a thrown 

object, by a fist, arm, foot or leg ... .” [Citation].’ [Citation.]” 

(Ibid.) 

The parents’ behavior throughout the Department’s 

investigation also supports the court’s jurisdiction findings. The 

parents refused to cooperate with the Department’s social 

workers when the investigation began, belittling and cursing at 

them. The parents also often denied they ever engaged in violent 

behavior, and, when confronted with contradictory statements 

they had made in the past, they accused others, including the 

responding police officers, of fabricating details about their 

violent altercations. Based on the parents’ obstructive, flippant, 
12

and dishonest behavior throughout the Department’s 

investigation, it was more than reasonable for the court to 

conclude mother and father were unlikely to resolve their issues 

with domestic violence without the court’s intervention. (In re 

A.F. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 283, 293 [“ ‘[D]enial is a factor often 

relevant to determining whether persons are likely to modify 

their behavior in the future without court supervision.’ ”].) 

The parents contend that even if their past violence created 

a risk of harm to the children, that risk no longer existed by the 

time of the jurisdiction hearing. Specifically, they point to 

evidence that they moved into their own apartment before the 

hearing, completed parenting classes, and enrolled in individual 

counseling and a domestic violence program. We fail to see how 

the parents moving into their own apartment would have tipped

the scale toward decreasing the risk of harm to the children. The 

record is replete with instances of the parents fighting while they 

were together. (See In re E.B. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 568, 576 

[“ ‘[p]ast violent behavior [between parents] in a relationship is 

“the best predictor of future violence” ’ ” and an indicator that 

violence will recur], disapproved on another ground by 

Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1010, fn. 7.) And, by 

the time of the jurisdiction hearing, there was no evidence that 

either parent had started participating in their domestic violence 

program. While the parents have evidently addressed the issues 

that led to the court removing the children from their custody, 

the court reasonably could have found that, at the time of the 

jurisdiction hearing, the parents had yet to adequately resolve 

those issues.
13

2. The parents’ challenge to the removal order is moot.

“ ‘ “A judicial tribunal ordinarily may consider and

determine only an existing controversy, and not a moot question

or abstract proposition. ... An important requirement for 

justiciability is the availability of ‘effective’ relief—that is, the 

prospect of a remedy that can have a practical, tangible impact 

on the parties’ conduct or legal status.” ’ ” (In re I.A. (2011) 201 

Cal.App.4th 1484, 1490.) “ ‘An appeal becomes moot when, 

through no fault of the respondent, the occurrence of an event 

renders it impossible for the appellate court to grant the 

appellant effective relief. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (In re Anna S.

(2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1489, 1498 (Anna S.).) 

As we explained above, the court returned the children to 

mother’s and father’s custody while this appeal was pending. 

Although the court’s disposition orders removed the children from 

their parents’ custody and required mother and father to 

participate in court-ordered case plans, the parents only 

challenge the court’s decision to remove the children from their 

custody. They do not challenge any aspect of their case plans.

And, while the parents argue their challenge to the removal order 

is not moot, they don’t identify any specific negative 

consequences that could flow from leaving that order 

undisturbed. Because the juvenile court’s May 2021 orders

returning the children to mother’s and father’s custody has 

provided the parents all the relief they seek through their 

challenge to the removal order, that challenge is moot and we 

dismiss it as such. (See Anna S., supra, 180 Cal.App.4th at p. 

1498.)
14

DISPOSITION

The portion of the appeals challenging the removal order is 

dismissed. The disposition orders and jurisdiction findings are 

otherwise affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

LAVIN, Acting P.J.

WE CONCUR:

EGERTON, J.

KALRA, J.*

* Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, assigned by the 

Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California 

Constitution.