1

Filed 7/16/14 In re K.D. CA1/2 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION TWO 

In re K.D. et al., Persons Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law. 

SAN MATEO COUNTY CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES AGENCY, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

v. 

D.W. et al., 

 Defendants and Appellants. 

 A138122 

 (San Mateo County 

 Super. Ct. No. 72958, 82276, 82277) 

 The mother of three minors (two girls and one boy ages 1, 3, and 11 at the time 

this proceeding was commenced), and the presumed father of two of the minors, appeal 

from the dispositional order of the juvenile court declaring the minors to be dependant 

children and placing them with a foster parent approved by respondent San Mateo 

County Children and Family Services Agency (Agency). 

 The court sustained the following allegations of the amended petition filed by the 

Agency on December 14, 2012: 

 “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 . . . to supervise or protect the child adequately. . . . [¶] On November 6, 2012, 

while the Agency was investigating an unexplained injury to [the younger daughter, she] 
2

stated that the father . . . pulls her arm and she is being ‘whooped’ with a belt on the 

buttocks by her parents. [The daughter] further reported that the father hits [the 

daughter’s brother], age twenty-three months, with a green plastic bat, and that the 

mother ‘whoops’ their half-sibling . . . . On November 12, 2012, the Agency filed 

WIC 300 (b) petitions regarding the children, and at the initial Hearing on November 14, 

2012, the court ordered the parents to cooperate with unannounced visits to the family’s 

home and the children’s schools. However, since that time, the Agency has made 

numerous efforts to visit the family and verify the children’s safety, and the parents have 

remained uncooperative. On December 6, 2012, the Agency learned that the family has 

moved out of their residence; the parents have refused to provide the Agency with their 

current address. Further, although the court issued Protective Custody Warrants 

regarding all three children on December 11, 2012, . . . [two of the minors] were taken 

into protective custody on December 12, 2012 [and] the parents have refused to discuss 

the whereabouts of [the third child]. The parents’ history of violent and abusive 

behavior, ongoing uncooperativeness with the Agency, and disregard for the court’s 

orders place [the children] at risk of harm in the care of the parents. 

 “The family has an extensive history of involvement with Child Protective 

Services and the Juvenile Court in San Mateo and San Francisco Counties, in that: 

 “On or about June 7, 2004, the mother hit [the older daughter] . . . with a belt, 

resulting in deep bruises to the child’s buttocks, lower back, and both legs. A 

WIC 300 (a) petition was filed, and on September 15, 2004, the petition was sustained 

and [the child] was declared a Dependent of the San Mateo County Juvenile Court in 

out-of-home placement. Family Reunification services were provided to the mother and 

[the daughter’s] father [not the appellant here], and on March 15, 2005, [the daughter] 

was returned to the mother’s care. Family Maintenance services were provided until 

September, 15, 2005, when [the daughter’s] Dependency status was terminated. 

 “On or about November 20, 2008, [the older daughter] . . . was removed from the 

mother’s care and detained in the protective custody by San Francisco County Children 

& Family Services, following [the daughter’s] disclosure that her mother routinely 
3

disciplined her by hitting her with a belt, a spatula, and her hands. Further, the mother 

refused to cooperate with the Agency in that she would not allow the social worker to 

meet with her or the children. As a result, WIC 300 (a), (b), (c), (g), and (j) petitions 

were filed regarding [the daughters] . . . . On February 9, 2009, the petition regarding 

[the older daughter] was sustained, she was declared a Dependent of San Francisco 

Juvenile Court and she was ordered to be returned to the mother’s care, with Family 

Maintenance services in place; the petition regarding [the younger daughter] who had not 

been removed from the mother’s care, was dismissed. Family maintenance services were 

provided until August 12, 2010, when Dependency status was terminated. 

 “On March 27, 2012, [the younger daughter] . . . witnessed a domestic dispute 

between the parents, . . . in which the parents yelled at each other and engaged in a 

physical conflict in which they tussled and fell to the ground. The mother ultimately 

stabbed [the father] in back of the left shoulder with a steak knife. Further, the front door 

jamb was split, and the mother alleged that [the father] had kicked in the front door when 

she attempted to force him to leave. Initially the mother did not allow the Agency to 

assess the children’s safety or make a plan to prevent them from being harmed during any 

other altercations between her and [the father]. WIC 300 (b) and (j) petitions were filed 

on behalf of the children on May 1, 2012. The mother and [the father] remained 

uncooperative for much of the investigation period, but eventually agreed to participate in 

Voluntary Services, to include anger management and domestic violence services. At the 

Jurisdiction Hearing on June 14, 2012, the petitions were dismissed. Since that time, the 

mother and [the father] failed to participate in any of the services outlined in the 

Voluntary Case Plan, and did not maintain contact with the Agency. 

 “The parents’ history of violent and abusive behavior, ongoing uncooperativeness 

with the Agency, and disregard for the court’s orders place [the children] at risk of harm 

in the care of the parents.” 

 The court sustained the allegations “[b]ased on the evidence presented and the 

[Agency] reports received, combined with the . . . long history of referrals to the 

Agency.” The court laid particular emphasis on two factors: (1) the “lack of candor on 
4

the part of both [parents] in terms of dealing with the situation of the domestic violence 

incident in March . . . that one strikes me as . . . being the most egregious in terms of my 

concerns with regard to the safety and well-being of these children. And they had the 

opportunity . . . to utilize services . . . . And they didn’t do it”; and (2) “another thing that 

struck me as being extremely unsettling was . . . knowing that an investigation by the 

Agency is going on, . . . [mother] moves, doesn’t tell anybody where she is going.” The 

court also noted to mother’s counsel: “Ms. Williams, we have heard virtually nothing 

from your client.” 

 The court announced its dispositional order as follows: 

 “I agree with Ms. Williams [counsel for mother] as to the responsibilities of the 

court in connection with the children. I agree that I have to find, by clear and convincing 

evidence, that there is substantial danger to the children’s physical or emotional 

well-being and there is no reasonable means to protect the children without such removal. 

 “That is a direct quote from your trial brief, Ms. Williams. In fact, I highlighted it 

when I read it. And I’m making just such a finding here. 

 “There is a long history . . . of physical abuse. 

 “There is domestic violence in the home. Domestic violence of stabbing. 

Domestic violence is an argument. Domestic violence is a threat. And if that doesn’t 

create an emotionally abusive situation, I don’t know what does. 

 “You have to deal with this before you can be good parents to your children. You 

are very, very fortunate to have such a large and supportive family to be willing to take 

on the responsibility that, apparently, both of you are unwilling to deal with after having 

done nothing about it last year. That is extremely disturbing to the court. 

 “The history of working with the Agency was abysmal, abysmal last year. And 

even after you made an agreement, there were two other . . . incidents reported . . . that 

would qualify as domestic violence. 

 “I’m finding, by clear and convincing evidence, it is in the best interests of the 

children to be removed from the care and custody of their parents. That being said, . . . I 

still hold out hope for both of you. Because it is . . . equally clear to me that you both 
5

care about your children and love your children deeply. But is time to step up and do 

something about it so that you are not going back and forth and involved with the system 

on such a regular basis and having to count on your extended family to care for your 

children because of your unaddressed issues. 

 “You are going to be given the opportunity to address these issues and put these 

things behind you. That should be the goal. This should be viewed as an opportunity. 

The two younger children, . . . probably at their age, would not even remember being 

exposed to the domestic violence. 

 “[The older daughter] seems like a very good kid and loves you [addressing the 

mother]. It is clear. It is very clear. And I’m giving you what I perceive the opportunity 

to become an even better mother to her. I mean, it is clear to me that you are concerned 

about her education. When you are involved, she thrives with her education. She loves 

you dearly. You have a situation . . . now where, if you utilize the services, the remainder 

of her school career and hopefully the remainder of her and your life will be even better. 

 “. . . [A]lso, we spent, here in San Mateo County, significant time, effort and 

energy on this case. . . . The sooner the services begin, the better as far as the court is 

concerned.” 

 Mother contends: “Reversal of the Orders on Jurisdiction and All Subsequent 

Orders is Called for Because There is Insufficient Evidence to Support the Finding that 

the Children Come within Subdivision (b) of Section 300” of the Welfare and Institutions 

Code. The contention is without merit. 

 At the start of the jurisdictional hearing, and without objection from either parent, 

the court received in evidence four reports from the Agency. Those reports are legally 

admissible evidence, notwithstanding that a report is itself hearsay and may contain 

multiple levels of hearsay. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 281; In re Cindy L. (1997) 17 Cal.4th 

15, 21-31.) At a jurisdictional hearing, the report is, by itself, sufficient for a 

jurisdictional finding. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 355, subds. (b), (c); Cal. Rules of Court, 

rule 5.684, subds. (c)-(d).) Those reports have been reviewed, and they fully support the 

quoted allegations. Moreover, any one of the findings concerning the father would 
6

suffice for the assertion of jurisdiction, because “a jurisdictional finding good against one 

parent is good against both.” (In re Alysha S. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 393, 397.) 

 Next, both parents attack the decision to remove they children as lacking proof 

that removal was necessary. “Before the court may order a child physically removed 

from his or her parent, it must find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the child 

would be at substantial risk of harm if returned home and that there are no reasonable 

means by which the child can be protected without removal. [Citations.] The 

jurisdictional findings are prima facie evidence that the child cannot safely remain in the 

home. [Citation.] The parent need not be dangerous and the child need not have been 

actually harmed for removal to be appropriate. The focus of the statute is on averting 

harm to the child. [Citations.] In this regard, the court may consider the parent’s past 

conduct as well as present circumstances. [Citation.]” (In re Cole C. (2009) 

174 Cal.App.4th 900, 917.) 

 Here, there was proof of actual harm, and the parents’ history gave ample ground 

for reasonable apprehension of substantial risk if the children were returned to the setting 

where the mother had so recently stabbed the father after having failed to benefit from the 

services proffered in previous dependencies. The case worker put it plainly: “The 

history of the family, and their behavior during the current case makes it extremely clear 

that the only way in which the children will be safe while the parents 
7

have an opportunity to engage in services to work on their anger management and 

parenting skills is through out-of-home care an intensive intervention and supervision by 

the Agency.” 

 The dispositional order is affirmed. 

 _________________________ 

 Richman, J. 

We concur: 

_________________________ 

Kline, P.J. 

_________________________ 

Brick, J.*

 

*

 Judge of the Alameda County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to 

article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.