Filed 9/5/14 In re Mariana G. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 MARIANA G., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 B253546

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. CK44843)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

OSCAR G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.

Robert Draper, Judge. Affirmed.

Nancy O. Flores, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant. 

John F. Krattli, County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, 

Tyson B. Nelson, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

___________________________________________________
2

Oscar G. (Father) appeals from the dependency court’s order finding jurisdiction 

over his two children. We find that the order was supported by substantial evidence, as 

Father and Maria G. (Mother) engaged in acts of domestic violence in the presence of 

their children. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This matter came to the attention of the Department of Children and Family 

Services (DCFS) on May 11, 2013. On that date, DCFS received a referral that 

Mariana G. (then age 10) and Luis. G. (then age 8) were left alone in their home without 

adult supervision until Mother returned home from work in the late evening.

A social worker interviewed Mother, who denied having a criminal record, but 

reported that Father’s girlfriend obtained a restraining order against her following a 

physical altercation in August 2012. Mother explained the incident to the social worker, 

saying that she had keys to Father’s residence because they had recently lived together. 

She entered Father’s apartment to pick up the children for a visit and found Luis sleeping 

in the same bed as Father and his girlfriend, who was naked. Mother pulled Father’s 

girlfriend’s hair until Father stopped her. The children were both in the room during the 

incident. 

Mother further reported that when she lived with Father, she was pushed, yelled at, 

and insulted by Father in front of the children. According to Mother, in December 2011, 

Father pushed her and threw a bottle at her head. In addition, in November 2012, Father 

entered her home, tried to grab her breasts, and ripped her shirt and bra. She shoved 

Father away, but he pushed her onto the bed. She tried to kick him, and he grabbed her 

leg and twisted it, causing her a great deal of pain. The children witnessed the incident 

and tried to stop it. Mother went to the hospital for treatment and filed a report with the 

police. She also filed for a restraining order against Father, which was granted; the order 

allowed for peaceful contact to facilitate visitation with the children. 

Mother became upset when asked about leaving the children alone, saying that she 

had to work and that Father did not provide financial support. She claimed that a 
3

neighbor frequently stopped by to check on the children. Mother got angry when the 

social worker suggested that Father and his relatives care for the children while she was 

at work, saying that Father was more interested in seeing other women than in seeing the 

children and that his family behaved inappropriately, including an aunt who was 

promiscuous. 

Father was also interviewed. He stated he had a criminal record for domestic 

violence due to problems with Mother. He recounted the incident involving his girlfriend 

and Mother, explaining that Mother entered the house through a window. She went into 

the bedroom where Father, the children, and Father’s girlfriend were sleeping (clothed) 

and tried to attack the girlfriend, until Father stopped her. The police were called, and 

they asked Mother to leave with the children. 

Father claimed that Mother had always been aggressive. He said that she had 

previously threatened him with a knife had tried to run him over with a car. Father 

denied making inappropriate physical contact with Mother. According to Father, Mother 

made it difficult for him to see the children, and when he was allowed to care for the 

children, Mother would often show up at his relative’s house yelling.

The social worker also interviewed Mariana and Luis. Mariana reported that 

Father had thrown Mother onto bicycles kept in the living room. In addition, Mariana 

saw Father grab and pull Mother’s shirt, causing it to rip. Father then twisted Mother’s 

leg and Mariana tried to stop him. When asked about the incident between Mother and 

Father’s girlfriend, Mariana said she did not see what happened because she was asleep. 

She said she had never seen Father’s girlfriend naked. Mariana said that she was not 

spanked by either Mother or Father, but that Father had once pulled her hair and hit her 

with an open hand when she did not want to get up for school.

Luis also denied seeing the incident between Mother and the girlfriend, stating that 

he was taken to another room by relatives. He acknowledged sleeping in the same bed 

with Father and his girlfriend, but stated they were all clothed. Luis claimed that Father 

did not visit, and that Mother did not want him and his sister to see Father. Luis said he 

did not want to see Father and wanted to stay with Mother. Luis saw Father push Mother 
4

on one occasion but had never seen him hit her. When Luis got in trouble, Father hit him 

with a belt on his buttocks over his pants. 

Various relatives of Father were also interviewed. They described Mother as 

aggressive and stated that she was generally the instigator of arguments with Father. 

DCFS held a team decision meeting with Mother on June 5, 2013. Mother was 

asked about leaving the children unattended, domestic violence in the presence of the 

children, incidents between Mother and Father’s girlfriend, and Mother’s controlling 

behavior, including not letting the children visit Father and turning Luis against Father. 

Mother did not adequately respond to any of these questions and instead directed the 

conversation to how Father did not care for the children. Mother reluctantly admitted 

that her actions were inappropriate but said she did not regret them. 

A separate team decision meeting was held with Father on June 6, 2013. Father 

stated that he had delivered food to the children when they were left alone on May 11, 

2013, but admitted that he then left them unattended. He agreed that conflict with 

Mother was negatively impacting the children. Father said he was able to care for the 

children more than Mother allowed, and that his family could also watch them.

DCFS filed a section 300 petition1 on June 18, 2013. The petition did not seek 

detention; rather, DCFS requested that the children remain in Mother’s home, with Father 

having regular, unmonitored visitation. The dependency court ordered the children 

released to Mother with Father to have unmonitored visits. The parents were ordered not 

to make disparaging remarks about each other or about each other’s relatives or friends in 

the presence of the children. 

Mother was interviewed again on June 27, 2013. She stated that Father had been 

physically abusive toward her more than once. In addition to the incident where he 

pushed her into the bicycles, and the incident in which he hurt her leg, Father had poured 

 

1 Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions 

Code.
5

beer on her, thrown the bottle at her head, and then pushed her. Mother denied that she 

had ever threatened Father with a knife or tried to run him over.

Father was re-interviewed on July 3, 2013. He stated that he had never hit the 

children with a belt but had occasionally spanked Luis on his bottom and hit the children 

on the hand or shoulder when they misbehaved. Father acknowledged that at certain 

points his relationship with Mother involved domestic violence. According to Father,

most of the verbal disputes were caused by Mother’s jealousy and her attempts to 

provoke him. Regarding the incident involving Mother’s injured leg, Father said that he 

had gone to the home to use the bathroom and Mother tried to kick him out. She ripped 

his shirt and he then ripped her shirt in an attempt to protect himself. Mother tried to kick 

him and he grabbed her leg, causing her to fall and get hurt. Father also stated that on 

one occasion he was drinking a beer when Mother tried to grab it from his hand, causing 

him to drop the beer and spill some on Mother. In addition, Father admitted that Mother 

had fallen on some bikes during an altercation, but stated it was because Mother was 

trying to hold onto him so that he could not leave the residence. Father brought up an 

additional incident involving his girlfriend, stating that Mother threw keys at her face, 

requiring her to get stitches. Father also stated that he was aware Mother left the children 

home alone while she was at work, but said he could not take care of them because she 

refused to let him see them. 

On November 20, 2013, Mother pled no contest to an amended section 300 

petition. 

Father’s contested adjudication hearing occurred on December 12, 2013. He 

testified that he was participating in a group counseling domestic violence program in 

which he learned about issues such as properly reacting to arguments and the effects of 

exposing children to domestic violence. Father said that he did not remember how many 

occasions his children were exposed to violence between him and Mother, and that he 

tried to avoid it, but it had happened on more than one occasion. He admitted that the 

children saw him push Mother, but said it was because she was kicking him. At the time 

of the hearing, he had not lived with Mother for nearly a year. 
6

Father further testified that he was abiding by the restraining order Mother had 

against him. He denied ever striking Luis with a belt. He admitted spanking Luis on his 

bottom, and said he may have spanked Mariana’s arm and pulled her hair one time. 

Finally, when asked if he intended to reunify with Mother, Father said, “Not right now.” 

The dependency court sustained the amended section 300 petition under 

subdivisions (a) and (b), finding that there was sufficient evidence of domestic violence, 

and that such violence placed the children at risk of harm. The court further declared the 

children dependents of the court, kept them in parental custody, and ordered that Father 

complete a 52-week domestic violence program. 

Father timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

Father contends that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the petition against 

him. He argues that the dependency court should not have found jurisdiction under either 

section 300, subdivision (a) or subdivision (b),2 because there was not a substantial risk 

that the children would suffer serious physical harm.

We review the dependency court’s findings for substantial evidence. “In juvenile 

cases, as in other areas of the law, the power of an appellate court asked to assess the 

sufficiency of the evidence begins and ends with a determination as to whether or not 

there is any substantial evidence, whether or not contradicted, which will support the 

 

2 Section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b) state, in pertinent part: “300. 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: [¶] (a) The 

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. For the 

purposes of this subdivision, a court may find there is a substantial risk of serious future 

injury based on the manner in which a less serious injury was inflicted, a history of 

repeated inflictions of injuries on the child or the child’s siblings, or a combination of 

these and other actions by the parent or guardian which indicate the child is at risk of 

serious physical harm. . . . [¶] (b) The 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 . . . .”
7

conclusion of the trier of fact.” (In re Katrina C. (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 540, 547.) All 

conflicts are resolved and all legitimate inferences are drawn in favor of the dependency 

court’s order. (Ibid.) “[W]e review the record in the light most favorable to the court’s 

determinations.” (In re Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 193.) We do not reweigh 

the dependency court’s determinations of fact or credibility. (Ibid.) 

Father contends that reversal is required because the statements given by Mother 

were not credible, as acknowledged in the jurisdiction/disposition report submitted by 

DCFS, which stated, “the Department is hesitant to believe all of the statements that 

mother has made.” Father also argues that the allegations of domestic violence were too 

remote in time to pose a current risk of harm to the children.

Father’s argument that Mother is not credible does not compel reversal. We do 

not second-guess the dependency court’s determinations of credibility. (In re Heather A., 

supra, 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 193.) To the extent that the trial court relied on Mother’s 

statements, we assume it was justified in doing so. In any event, there was substantial 

evidence of domestic violence aside from the statements given by Mother. Father 

himself acknowledged that domestic violence occurred on more than one occasion, and 

the statements of Luis and Mariana regarding domestic violence corroborated much of 

the evidence given by Mother.

A long line of cases has held that domestic violence harms children and is a valid 

basis for finding dependency jurisdiction. “‘Both common sense and expert opinion . . . 

indicate spousal abuse is detrimental to children.’” (In re Sylvia R. (1997) 55 

Cal.App.4th 559, 562, citing In re Benjamin D. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1464, 1470, 

fn. 5.) The dependency court need not wait until a child suffers actual physical harm 

before finding jurisdiction. “It is clear to this court that domestic violence in the same 

household where children are living is neglect; it is a failure to protect [children] from the 

substantial risk of encountering the violence and suffering serious physical harm or 

illness from it. Such neglect causes the risk.” (In re Heather A., supra, 52 Cal.App.4th 

at p. 194.) 
8

Father’s contention that the domestic violence was too far removed in time to 

constitute a risk also fails. Father relies on In re Daisy H. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 713, 

which held: “Physical violence between a child’s parents may support the exercise of 

jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b) but only if there is evidence that the 

violence is ongoing or likely to continue and that it directly harmed the child physically 

or placed the child at risk of physical harm.” (Id. at p. 717.) The domestic violence at 

issue in In re Daisy H. occurred seven years prior to the filing of the section 300 petition. 

(Ibid.) In contrast, in this case, the most recent episode of domestic violence between 

Mother and Father occurred no more than six months before the petition was filed. And 

substantial evidence supported the conclusion that the violence was likely to continue—

there were numerous instances of violence between Mother and Father (as well as Mother 

and Father’s girlfriend), and Mother continued to hold a great deal of animosity toward 

Father. 

In sum, substantial evidence supported a finding of jurisdiction. This finding was 

certainly appropriate under section 300, subdivision (b), as domestic violence is 

frequently found to give rise to jurisdiction under that subdivision. (See, e.g., In re 

Heather A., supra, 52 Cal.App.4th at p. 194; In re Basilio T. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 155, 

168.) Since we find that jurisdiction was supported under section 300, subdivision (b), it 

is unnecessary to determine whether it was also appropriate under subdivision (a). 

“When a dependency petition alleges multiple grounds for its assertion that a minor 

comes within the dependency court’s jurisdiction, a reviewing court can affirm the 

juvenile court’s finding of jurisdiction over the minor if any one of the statutory bases for 

jurisdiction that are enumerated in the petition is supported by substantial evidence. In 

such a case, the reviewing court need not consider whether any or all of the other alleged 

statutory grounds for jurisdiction are supported by the evidence.” (In re Alexis E. (2009) 

171 Cal.App.4th 438, 451; see also In re Jonathan B. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 873, 875.) 

We also note that the acts giving rise to jurisdiction here involved both Father and

Mother. “[T]he court takes jurisdiction over children (§ 300); it does not take jurisdiction 

over parents.” (In re Joshua G. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 189, 202.) “[A] jurisdictional 
9

finding good against one parent is good against both. More accurately, the minor is a 

dependent if the actions of either parent bring her within one of the statutory definitions 

of a dependent.” (In re Alysha S. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 393, 397.) Mother did not 

appeal from any of the dependency court’s findings, including whether jurisdiction was 

proper under subdivision (a) or (b). Since jurisdiction has been established, we need not 

determine if it was justified under multiple grounds.

DISPOSITION

The December 12, 2013 order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

BOREN, P.J.

We concur:

ASHMANN-GERST, J.

CHAVEZ, J.