Filed 11/5/13 In re Prince T. CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 TWO

In re PRINCE T. et al., Persons Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 B247459

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. CK68029)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND 

FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ANDREA P.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from findings and an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County. Timothy R. Saito, Judge. Reversed.

Marsha F. Levine, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

John F. Krattli, County Counsel, and William D. Thetford, Deputy County 

Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________
2

Andrea P. (mother) and Wilson T. (father) are the parents of Prince T. (Prince, 

born Feb. 2007), Savannah T. (Savannah, born July 2008), and Grant T. (Grant, born 

Aug. 2010). The juvenile court sustained allegations under Welfare and Institutions Code 

section 300, subdivision (j),1 against both parents and removed the children from parental 

custody. Mother appeals, arguing that the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding is not 

supported by substantial evidence. The Department of Children and Family Services 

(DCFS) concedes that there was insufficient evidence to support the jurisdictional finding 

by the juvenile court.

We agree with the parties that the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding is not 

supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we reverse the jurisdictional finding and 

the resulting dispositional findings and order.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Companion Case

Mother and father were involved in a companion case with respect to the 

children’s half-siblings, Jasmine T. (Jasmine) and D.T. (D.), father’s children by a 

different mother. In that case, a petition was filed in 2012 based on allegations that in 

2007 mother had physically abused Jasmine by striking and biting her face, causing a 

laceration and bruises, and that father failed to take action to protect her. That petition 

was sustained in part and dismissed in part.

On May 11, 2012, DCFS filed another dependency petition in the companion case 

that alleged, among other things, that mother had physically abused Jasmine by striking 

her nose with her fists, inflicting a bleeding laceration to the child’s nose, and that mother 

physically abused Jasmine on prior occasions by striking her and inflicting welts, bruises, 

and marks to her body. The petition further alleged that father knew of mother’s physical 

abuse of Jasmine and failed to protect her. On July 31, 2012, the juvenile court sustained 

 

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless 

otherwise indicated.
3

the physical abuse allegations, released Jasmine and D. to their mother, and ordered that 

father’s visits with Jasmine and D. be monitored.

Prior Petition on Behalf of Prince, Savannah, and Grant

In March 2012, DCFS filed a section 300 petition on behalf of Prince, Savannah, 

and Grant. The petition alleged domestic violence between mother and father and that 

father suffered mental and emotional problems, including a diagnosis of paranoid 

schizophrenia. That petition was dismissed on July 31, 2012.

Instant Case

On August 6, 2012, DCFS filed the instant section 300 petition on behalf of 

Prince, Savannah, and Grant. The petition contained allegations pursuant to subdivisions 

(b)2 and (j).3 The juvenile court found a prima facie case for detaining the children and 

set the matter for a pretrial resolution conference and an adjudication hearing.

Mother and father denied the allegations in the petition. Regarding the allegation 

that mother had physically abused Jasmine, mother and father explained that they had 

received services from DCFS, were compliant, and that the matter had been resolved. 

DCFS confirmed the parents’ representations. Furthermore, as a result of mother’s 

negative drug test on September 21, 2012, DCFS was satisfied that mother was not a 

current abuser of marijuana. 

 

2 Count b-1 alleged, in relevant part, that mother “has a 5 year history of illicit drug 

abuse and is a current abuser of marijuana which renders the mother incapable of 

providing the children with regular care and supervision.” Count b-2 alleged mother’s 

prior physical abuse of Jasmine. 

3 Count j-1 alleged: “On prior occasions, . . . mother . . . physically abused 

. . . Jasmine . . . by striking [her] nose with the mother’s fists, inflicting a bleeding 

laceration to [Jasmine’s] nose. On prior occasions, the mother struck . . . Jasmine, 

inflicting welts, bruises and marks to [Jasmine’s] body. Such physical abuse was 

excessive and caused [Jasmine] unreasonable pain and suffering. The father . . . knew of 

the physical abuse of [Jasmine] by the mother and failed to protect the child. The 

physical abuse of the sibling on the part of the mother and the father’s failure to protect 

the sibling endangers the children’s physical health and safety, placing the children 

Prince, Savannah and Grant at risk of physical harm, damage and danger.”
4

Other unrelated allegations of abuse and neglect were investigated and determined 

to be unfounded. 

After a few hearings, on January 23, 2013, the juvenile court sustained count j-1 of 

the petition and dismissed the remaining counts. A contested disposition hearing was set 

for February 11, 2013. At that hearing, the social worker reported that DCFS had 

assessed the parents and recommended that they receive unmonitored visits because 

“DCFS has no current evidence that mother and father present a threat or danger to their 

children and because each parent is equally vested in spending quality time with their 

children.”

The juvenile court declared the children dependents of the court and found that 

there was a substantial danger to the children if they were returned home. Both parents 

were provided reunification services; mother was granted monitored visitation; father was 

allowed unmonitored visitation. 

Appeal

Mother’s timely appeal ensued.

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

“When the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding or order is challenged 

on appeal, the reviewing court must determine if there is any substantial evidence, that is, 

evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value to support the conclusion of the 

trier of fact.” (In re Ricardo L. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 552, 564.)

II. Analysis

Section 300, subdivision (j), provides, in relevant part: “Any child who comes 

within any of the following descriptions is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court 

which may adjudge that person to be a dependent child of the court: [¶] . . . [¶] (j) The 

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 court shall consider the circumstances surrounding the abuse or 

neglect of the sibling, the age and gender of each child, the nature of the abuse or neglect 
5

of the sibling, the mental condition of the parent or guardian, and any other factors the 

court considers probative in determining whether there is a substantial risk to the child.”

“[S]ubdivision (j) has two prongs: (1) that ‘[t]he child’s sibling has been abused 

or neglected, as defined in subdivision (a), (b), (d), (e), or (i)’; and (2) ‘there is a 

substantial risk that the child will be abused or neglected, as defined in those 

subdivisions.’ [Citation.]” (In re Ricardo L., supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at p. 566.)

Here, as DCFS concedes, there is no evidence that Prince, Savannah, and Grant 

are currently at risk of being abused. The only evidence before the juvenile court was 

that mother had physically abused Jasmine in 2012. But, DCFS acknowledged mother 

and father had addressed all allegations raised in the petition in the companion case, by 

complying with all services and resolving the issues that led to DCFS involvement. 

Thus, there is no evidence that these three children are at risk of being abused. (In re 

Ricardo L., supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at p. 566; In re David M. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 

822, 832.) The juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding must be reversed.

It follows that the juvenile court’s removal order must be reversed as well. There 

is no evidence that the children were at risk of harm. (See, e.g., In re Noe F. (2013) 213 

Cal.App.4th 358, 367.)

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s findings and order are reversed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

______________________________, J.

ASHMANN-GERST

We concur:

_______________________________, P. J.

BOREN

_______________________________, J.

CHAVEZ