Filed 6/23/21 In re R.A. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 R.A. et al., Persons Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 B307323

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. 

No. 20CCJP01983A-B)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RHANISHA B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, Marguerite D. Downing, Judge. Affirmed.

Janette Freeman Cochran, under appointment by the Court 

of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
2

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

Assistant County Counsel, and Jane Kwon, Principal Deputy 

County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * * * * *

Appellant Rhanisha B. (mother) appeals from orders 

establishing dependency jurisdiction over her daughters, R.A. 

(born 2013) and M.B. (born 2017), and removing them from her 

custody. Mother contends there was insufficient evidence to 

support the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings under Welfare 

and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b)1 that 

domestic violence between her and M.B.’s father, Michael G. 

(father), and mother’s failure to protect the children endangered 

their physical health and safety and placed them at risk of harm.

We affirm the juvenile court’s orders.

BACKGROUND

Detention and section 300 petition

The Los Angeles County Department of Children and 

Family Services (the Department) received a referral on 

February 11, 2020, concerning an incident of domestic violence at 

the corner of 11th and Vernon Avenues. The reporting party 

stated that father had punched and strangled mother and pushed 

her into the street while a child in a stroller nearby was crying 

and screaming.

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code.
3

Responding law enforcement officers reported that mother 

was shaking, crying, and limping. Father had fled the scene. 

Mother told the officers that father had been absent for five days, 

and she had gone outside to confront him about his infidelity. 

Father responded by pinning mother against a wall and 

strangling her for two to three minutes so that she had difficulty 

breathing. Father then punched mother in the face four or five 

times and forcefully pushed her into the street, where she 

narrowly missed being struck by a vehicle. Mother suffered 

bruising and swelling on her left eyelid, swelling on her left 

ankle, and an abrasion on her left elbow.

A Department social worker interviewed mother at her 

home on February 19, 2020. Mother had a cast on her foot and 

was using crutches. She denied any criminal, substance abuse, 

domestic violence, or child welfare history. Mother also denied 

the February 11, 2020 domestic violence incident with father and 

claimed she and father had simply argued. She said neither R.A. 

nor M.B. was present during the incident.

Mother declined to identify or provide contact information 

for R.A.’s father. She identified father as M.B.’s father and said 

he did not live in the home but visited on occasion and sometimes 

stayed overnight. Mother said M.B. was born with a clubbed 

right foot and is missing the middle and ring fingers on her right 

hand.

The social worker interviewed R.A. with mother’s consent 

and in mother’s presence. R.A. denied witnessing any physical 

altercations between mother and father. Neither R.A. nor M.B. 

had any marks or other indications of physical abuse or neglect.

The social worker also interviewed father, who was in the 

home at the time. Father denied any domestic violence with 
4

mother and denied the February 11, 2020 incident. He said he 

did not live in the home but visited occasionally with M.B. and 

sometimes spent the night. 

The social worker returned to the home on April 6, 2020,

with a removal warrant for the children. Mother said the 

children were with the maternal grandmother. From the front 

door, the social worker observed a man entering the home’s 

bedroom. Mother initially denied that father was in the home 

but later admitted that father was present. Father declined to be 

interviewed. Mother again denied any domestic violence with 

father. She became irate when served with the removal warrant 

and asked the social worker to leave the home.

In a March 17, 2020 telephone interview, the maternal 

grandmother told the social worker she had no concerns for the 

safety of the children. She denied witnessing any physical 

altercations between mother and father. The maternal 

grandmother confirmed that the children were staying in her 

home.

On April 8, 2020, the Department filed a petition under 

section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b) alleging that R.A. and M.B. 

were at risk of serious physical harm because of ongoing domestic 

violence between mother and father and mother’s failure to 

protect the children.

Neither mother nor father was present at the April 13, 

2020 hearing at which the juvenile court ordered M.B. and R.A. 

detained in shelter care. The court accorded mother monitored 

visits, not to take place together with father.

Mother appeared at the June 24, 2020 arraignment hearing 

and denied the allegations of the petition. The juvenile court 
5

found father to be M.B.’s presumed father and Timothy A. to be 

R.A.’s presumed father.

Mother claimed neither R.A. nor M.B. was present during 

the February 11, 2020 incident with father and that she had been 

babysitting another child that day. The juvenile court denied 

mother’s request to release the children to her. The court ordered 

R.A. removed from mother and released to Timothy under the 

Department’s supervision and M.B. removed from both mother 

and father and placed in the Department’s care. Mother and 

father were accorded monitored visits, not to take place together.

Jurisdiction and disposition

The Department’s July 2020 jurisdiction/disposition report 

included a summary of the family’s child welfare history. An 

October 2019 referral alleged that father had used a bat to hit

mother in the face several times while the children were present. 

That allegation was closed as inconclusive.

A December 2017 referral reported that R.A. was 

hospitalized for head trauma and facial fractures after being 

struck by a car. The incident was determined to be an accident 

caused by R.A.’s aunt inadvertently backing a car into the child. 

The same referral included an allegation that M.B. had been 

hospitalized for a respiratory infection and failure to thrive. That 

allegation was closed as unfounded.

A 2013 referral alleged that mother and R.A. had both 

tested positive for marijuana. The allegation was substantiated, 

and mother received voluntary family maintenance services from 

January 2014 to August 2014.

Both mother and father had criminal histories. Mother’s 

criminal history included disorderly conduct, prostitution, and 

loitering with intent to prostitute. Father’s criminal history 
6

included battery, inflicting corporal injury on a spouse, and 

presenting false identification to peace officers.

R.A., who had been with Timothy for an extended visit, was 

now in the same foster home as M.B. In an April 29, 2020 

interview, R.A. told the social worker that mother and father 

“both fight.” When asked whether they fight with words or their 

bodies, R.A. responded, “with their bodies.”

The children’s caregiver reported that R.A. was engaging in 

sexualized behaviors and that the child disclosed she had been 

sexually molested by a maternal cousin. The maternal aunt and 

the maternal grandmother denied any sexualized behavior or 

sexual contact involving the children. They claimed R.A. had 

fabricated the account. Mother told the social worker that she 

believed R.A.’s disclosure and that she did not want the children 

placed with the maternal aunt.

R.A.’s father, Timothy, told the social worker in an 

April 29, 2020 telephone interview that he and mother had been 

separated for five years. He had no knowledge of mother’s 

relationship with father. Timothy was having regular telephonic 

and video visits with R.A. R.A.’s caregiver reported that Timothy 

was attentive and appeared to share a strong bond with the child.

Mother continued to deny the domestic violence allegations. 

She claimed she had injured her foot in February during a 

physical altercation with another woman. Mother denied that 

father had choked her. She insisted that a restraining order 

against him was unnecessary. When the dependency 

investigator informed mother that R.A. had reported witnessing 

physical altercations between mother and father, mother claimed 

R.A. had been coached.
7

Mother had regular telephone and FaceTime visits with the 

children. The caregiver reported that during one video visit, 

mother told M.B., “Daddy wants to see you,” and an unidentified 

male appeared on the screen.

Father was in custody in May 2020 for violating his 

probation. He denied physically assaulting mother in February

and claimed mother had injured her foot while fighting with 

another woman. Father admitted that M.B. was present during 

that altercation. Father said he and mother sometimes argued in 

the presence of the children, but he denied any physical 

altercations.

The maternal grandmother told the dependency 

investigator during a May 19, 2020 telephonic interview that she 

went to assist mother after the February 11, 2020 incident and 

observed mother limping. She said M.B. was present during the 

incident but R.A. was in school at the time. The maternal 

grandmother said father was not welcome in her home. She said 

father had once entered her home uninvited and set fire to 

clothing he believed belonged to mother.

In a “Last Minute Information for the Court” filed in July

2020, the Department reported that criminal charges had been 

filed against father for the February 11, 2020 domestic violence 

incident against mother. Police records showed a pattern of 

domestic violence between mother and father. An October 2019 

police report indicated that father had beat mother with a 

baseball bat. R.A. was present and screamed at father to stop. 

Father told mother, “I’m going to kill you tonight,” and then fled 

the scene. Mother suffered a laceration on her left check and a 

raised bump on her head. Another incident of domestic violence 

occurred on May 13, 2020, approximately one month after the 
8

children were removed from mother’s custody. Mother 

vandalized father’s car by hitting the car windows. Father 

approached with a bat in his hand and hit mother on her leg and 

on her hand. He fled when mother screamed and called 911. 

Responding officers observed a contusion on mother’s right hand, 

and mother complained of pain in her leg.

Mother told the social worker in June 2020 that she did not 

understand why the children could not be returned to her, as 

father was incarcerated. She continued to deny any domestic

violence. Mother pointed out that although she had called 911 on 

multiple occasions, she had never pressed charges against father.

In July 2020, mother informed the Department that she 

had completed online classes and again requested return of the 

children to her. The Department would not approve the online 

domestic violence program mother had completed, because she 

was unable to provide any details about the program. The 

Department similarly disapproved an online parenting program 

mother had completed, because the program’s Web site expressly 

stated that it was not recommended for families with a history of 

domestic violence.

The juvenile court released R.A. to Timothy’s custody on 

July 7, 2020. The following month the Department reported that 

R.A. was doing well in Timothy’s home and enjoyed living with 

him. R.A. reported that during her most recent visit with 

mother, the maternal grandmother and mother “had a fight,” 

which made R.A. sad.

Jurisdiction and disposition hearing

At the combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing held 

on August 24, 2020, the juvenile court admitted into the evidence 

the Department’s reports. Mother testified that the children had 
9

never witnessed any physical altercations between her and 

father. She said she had completed online classes for parenting 

and for domestic violence victims and that she learned that 

domestic violence is harmful to both her and the children. 

Mother further testified that she had obtained a restraining 

order against father that she intended to enforce.

On cross-examination, mother admitted two incidents of 

domestic violence with father during the past year but could only 

recall the February 2020 incident. She denied that any physical 

altercations with father occurred in October 2019 or May 2020.

After hearing argument from the parties, the juvenile court 

sustained the allegations of the petition2 and found that domestic 

2 The sustained allegations under section 300, subdivisions 

(a) and (b) state: “The children [R.A.] and [M.B.]’s mother . . . 

and the mother’s male companion, Michael [G.], father of the 

child [M.B.], have a history of engaging in escalating verbal and 

physical violent altercations in the child[ren]’s presence. On 

2/11/20, the . . . father struck the mother’s face multiple times 

with both hands in the child [M.B.]’s presence, inflicting swelling 

and bruising to [mother’s] left eye lid. The . . . father forcefully 

pushed the mother into a street with vehicular traffic where 

mother narrowly miss[ed] being struck by a moving vehicle, 

causing the mother to sustain abrasions to her elbow and 

swelling to her left ankle. The . . . father forcefully grabbed the 

mother’s neck and pinned her against a wall, casing the mother 

to have difficulty breathing. The mother struck the . . . father 

multiple times in an attempt to break through his grip. On 

10/18/19, the . . . father grabbed a bat and began to hit the 

mother in the face several times in the child [M.B.]’s presence. 

On prior occasions, the . . . father assaulted the mother. The . . .

father threatened to kill the mother. The . . . father has a 

criminal history of convictions of Battery and Inflicting Corporal 

Injury Spouse/Cohabitant. The mother failed to protect the 
10

violence between mother and father, and mother’s failure to 

protect the children, placed the children at risk of serious 

physical harm. The court found mother’s testimony not to be 

credible, noting inconsistencies in her testimony about the 

frequency of incidents of domestic violence and the children’s 

presence during those incidents. The juvenile court further found 

that mother’s participation in four hours of domestic violence 

counseling and four hours of parenting, but no individual 

counseling, was insufficient in light of the history and severity of 

domestic violence.

The juvenile court declared R.A. and M.B. to be dependent 

children and removed them from mother’s custody. The court 

released R.A. to Timothy and ordered M.B to be suitably placed. 

Mother was accorded monitored visits and ordered to participate 

in individual counseling to address case issues, a domestic 

violence program with credit given for the completed classes, and 

a psychiatric evaluation.

This appeal followed.

children in that the mother allowed the . . . father to frequent the 

children’s home including overnights and allowed him to have

unlimited access to the children. The . . . father’s violent conduct 

against the mother and the mother’s failure to protect the 

children endanger the children’s physical health and safety and 

place the children at risk of serious physical harm, damage, 

danger and failure to protect.”
11

DISCUSSION

I. Jurisdiction

A. Applicable law and standard of review

Section 300, subdivision (a) authorizes juvenile court 

jurisdiction over a child when the child has suffered, or there is a 

substantial risk the child will suffer, serious physical harm 

inflicted nonaccidentally upon the child by the child’s parent or 

guardian.

Section 300, subdivision (b) authorizes the dependency 

court to assume jurisdiction over a child when the child has 

suffered or is at a substantial risk of suffering serious physical 

harm as a result of the parent’s failure or inability to adequately 

supervise or protect the child.

“Although ‘the question under section 300 is whether 

circumstances at the time of the hearing subject the minor to the 

defined risk of harm’ [citation], the court may nevertheless 

consider past events when determining whether a child presently 

needs the juvenile court’s protection. [Citations.] A parent’s past 

conduct is a good predictor of future behavior.” (In re T.V. (2013) 

217 Cal.App.4th 126, 133.)

“‘In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence 

supporting the [juvenile court’s] jurisdictional findings . . . , we 

determine if substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, 

supports them. “In making this determination, we draw all 

reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings 

and orders of the dependency court; we review the record in the 

light most favorable to the court’s determinations; and we note 

that issues of fact and credibility are the province of the trial 

court.” (In re Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 193.) “We do 

not reweigh the evidence or exercise independent judgment, but 
12

merely determine if there are sufficient facts to support the 

findings of the trial court.”’” (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 

773.)

B. Substantial evidence supports the jurisdictional 

findings

Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s 

jurisdictional findings. The record contains evidence of three 

separate incidents of severe domestic violence by father against 

mother. On February 11, 2020, father pinned mother against a 

wall and strangled her for two to three minutes, making it 

difficult for her to breathe. He then struck mother in the face 

three to four times and pushed her forcefully into the street 

where she narrowly missed being struck by a passing vehicle. 

Mother suffered swelling and a contusion on her left eye, swelling 

and a contusion on her left ankle, and abrasions on her elbow. 

Responding police officers and the maternal grandmother 

confirmed that M.B. was present during this incident.

On October 18, 2019, father used a bat to repeatedly strike 

mother in the face. He then threatened to kill her. R.A. was 

present during this incident. R.A. later reported that mother and 

father fight “with their bodies.”

On May 13, 2020, one month after the children were 

detained, mother vandalized father’s car, and father used a bat to 

hit mother on her leg and on her hand. Father fled after mother 

screamed and called 911. Mother suffered a contusion to her 

hand and pain in her leg.

Substantial evidence also supports the juvenile court’s 

finding that mother failed to protect the children from father’s 

violent behavior. Despite repeated instances of domestic violence 

with father that resulted in law enforcement intervention, 
13

mother continued to have contact with father and allowed him to 

stay overnight in the home. Mother denied any domestic 

violence, notwithstanding the overwhelming evidence to the 

contrary. “A parent’s denial of domestic violence increases the 

risk of it recurring.” (In re V.L. (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 147, 156; 

accord, In re A.F. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 283, 293 [denial a relevant

factor when determining whether persons are likely to modify 

their behavior without court supervision].)

The evidence described above is sufficient to support the 

trial court’s finding that R.A. and M.B. were children described 

under section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b). That the children 

suffered no actual harm as a result of domestic violence between 

mother and father did not preclude the juvenile court’s 

assumption of jurisdiction. The court need not wait until the 

children are harmed before taking action to protect them. (In re 

Heather A., supra, 52 Cal.App.4th at pp. 194-196.) Domestic 

violence in the home places a child at risk of encountering 

violence and suffering serious physical harm as a result. (Id. at 

p. 194.) The record shows that M.B., a child of tender years who 

required special medical care, was in a stroller nearby when 

father attacked mother on February 11, 2020. R.A. was present 

during an October 2019 incident when father used a bat to 

repeatedly strike mother in the face and then threatened to kill 

her.

In re J.N. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1010, on which mother 

relies, is distinguishable. That case involved a single incident of 

endangering conduct by the parents, who drove with the children 

while intoxicated, resulting in an accident that caused injuries to 

the children. (Id. at pp. 1014-1018.) There was no evidence that 

the parents were substance abusers, or that their parenting skills 
14

or judgment were so materially deficient that they were unable to 

adequately supervise or protect the children. (Id. at p. 1026.) 

Here, in contrast, there were multiple incidents of domestic 

violence between mother and father, including one that occurred 

within a month after the children were detained. Mother 

repeatedly denied any domestic violence and continued to 

associate with father and to allow him into the home.

Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s 

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

II. Removal order

To remove a child from a custodial parent, the juvenile 

court must find that “[t]here is or would be a substantial danger 

to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional 

well-being of the minor if the minor were returned home.” (§ 361, 

subd. (c)(1).) “‘A removal order is proper if it is based on proof of 

(1) parental inability to provide proper care for the minor and (2) 

potential detriment to the minor if he or she remains with the 

parent.’” (In re D.D. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 985, 996.) We review 

the juvenile court’s selection of a dispositional order for a minor 

under the substantial evidence standard. (In re Hailey T. (2012) 

212 Cal.App.4th 139, 145-146.)

The same evidence that supports the juvenile court’s 

assumption of jurisdiction over the children also supports the 

dispositional order. The multiple domestic violence incidents 

between mother and father, three involving law enforcement 

response; mother’s denial of the domestic violence; her continued 

contact with father after the children’s detention, resulting in yet 

another domestic violence incident; and mother’s failure to 

complete domestic violence, parenting, and individual counseling 
15

programs approved by the Department provide ample support for 

the juvenile court’s removal order.

DISPOSITION

The orders establishing juvenile court jurisdiction over the 

children and removing them from mother’s custody are affirmed.

________________________, J.

CHAVEZ

We concur:

________________________, P. J.

LUI

________________________, J.

ASHMANN-GERST