Filed 3/8/23 In re Johnnie 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 JOHNNIE G. et al., Persons

Coming Under the Juvenile Court 

Law.

 B314873

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct.

 No. 21CCJP02306A-B)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

EVELI N.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Philip L. Soto, Judge. Affirmed.

Gina Zaragoza, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Appellant.
2

Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, and Stephen Watson, Deputy County 

Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * * * * *

Eveli N. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s judgment 

asserting jurisdiction over her two children, Adam G. (age 4) and 

Johnnie G. (age 16), and removing them from her custody. She 

contends that substantial evidence did not support the court’s 

findings. We disagree and affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

Detention Report

In May 2021, the Los Angeles County Department of Children 

and Family Services (DCFS or Department) filed a juvenile 

dependency petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code

section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b)(1)1 to bring the minor children

within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.2 The Department filed 

an amended petition on August 2, 2021. We summarize from the 

allegations of the amended petition, which deleted the allegation 

1 All further unattributed code sections are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.

2 We grant mother’s requests for judicial notice of minute 

orders issued by the juvenile court after this appeal was filed. On 

August 1, 2022, the court returned custody of the children to father 

and ordered them placed in father’s home. On November 10, 2022, 

jurisdiction over Johnnie was terminated, after he turned 18 years 

old in September 2022. As mother does not claim otherwise, we 

find the appeal moot as it pertains to Johnnie, and we dismiss it as 

it pertains to him. (See In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 277-278.)
3

from the original that mother struck father during an argument. 

Otherwise they were not substantially different.

Both counts were based upon the same facts. The amended 

petition alleged that mother and Johnnie G. (father) had engaged in 

physical and verbal altercations. On March 24, 2021, father struck 

mother and pulled her hair in Adam’s presence. On April 30, 2021, 

after mother and father called each other derogatory names, father 

parked in mother’s driveway, mother blocked his car with a trash 

can, and father struck the can and mother’s car with his car when 

he attempted to leave. In addition, father had placed a tracking 

device on mother’s car, which he would follow. In the past father

had a criminal conviction of inflicting injury upon a spouse or 

cohabitant. The petition further alleged that father’s conduct

endangered the children’s physical health and safety and placed the 

children at risk of serious physical harm, damage, and danger.

A detention hearing was held on May 20, 2021. The 

Department’s report, filed prior to the hearing, contained a 

description of the investigation into the family up to that date.

Interviews with mother

A DCFS children’s social worker (CSW) summarized her 

March 31, 2021 home interview with mother in Adam’s presence, as 

Adam did not want to leave his mother’s side. Mother said she and 

father had separated about a month earlier after 20 years together

due to verbal, mental and psychological abuse, and that she had 

moved in with her mother (maternal grandmother). Mother 

claimed that father was jealous, had isolated her from her family, 

stalked her, texted her from various numbers, harassed her at her 

job, placed a tracking device on her car, threatened her nephew, 

and left apology notes on her car. When CSW offered to help her 

obtain a restraining order, mother declined because she had already 

unsuccessfully tried several times, including on March 19, 2021.
4

With regard to the March 24, 2021 incident, mother saw 

father following her on her way home from work, became upset and 

tired of his behavior, so she “raced father to her home,” blocked him 

in her driveway, and called the police. Father became upset, got out

of his car, went to the driver’s side of her car, punched her head 

three times and then punched her car several times. Adam was in 

father’s car and mother claimed that he “witnessed everything.”

Mother said father was a good father to his children and 

stepchildren and very loving and attentive toward Adam, who was 

attached to him. She said Johnnie lived with father both because 

he was bonded with him and all paternal relatives and due to the 

language barrier with maternal relatives, who spoke Spanish, 

which Johnnie did not understand. Mother was not worried that

father would neglect or harm the children and said she wanted to 

coparent with him because that would be in the children’s best 

interests. Mother, who was living in maternal grandmother’s home, 

intended to move with her children to her own apartment but faced 

difficulty finding one given her poor credit.

CSW spoke with mother several times between April 1 and 

May 10, 2021. On April 1, mother said father had not continued to 

harass her and when CSW reminded her of the offer to help her 

apply for a restraining order and to seek custody, mother responded

that father would not like that and that it would not be the best 

decision to keep the children from father. Mother preferred to go to 

family court first.

On April 16, when they next spoke, mother told CSW that 

father had not continued to bother her, and she had not had time to 
5

apply for a restraining order or custody, but she had completed

DCFS medical forms.3

Mother had applied for a restraining order on March 19, but 

did not have the required evidence, and was given a court date of 

April 9, 2021, but she did not appear in court. Mother said she 

forgot about having a court date, and she had to work that day. 

When CSW told mother that the police report of the March 24 

incident indicated that mother had refused an emergency 

restraining order, mother claimed, “That’s a lie,” and that she 

wanted one but was denied.

On May 7, mother said that she was doing what she could to 

keep the children safe and succeeding. She applied for a 

restraining order and received a temporary restraining order 

(TRO), including a stay away order relating both to her and the 

children, with a court appearance scheduled for May 28, 2021. 

When CSW told mother that her investigation of mother’s requests 

for restraining orders showed one had been granted on January 19, 

2021, mother claimed that it had been “expunged” by the court 

because she agreed to allow father visitation with the children.

Adam’s interview

After interviewing mother on March 31, 2021, CSW 

interviewed Adam privately. He told her, “My daddy punch your 

[sic] mom.” When asked what he meant, Adam made a fist, hit 

himself on the head, said, “My daddy,” and, “He hit mom,” and she

threw water at him. Adam told CSW that he was in father’s car 

during the incident. When she asked Adam if he had ever observed 

3 On May 3, mother had still not obtained a restraining order, 

although on April 30, father followed her home where she dropped 

off Adam. When she went back outside, she saw her adult niece 

arguing with father, and mother called the police.
6

his parents fighting, being mean to each other, or using bad words,

he said, “My dad yell at my mom,” and indicated he used bad words 

when he did, but no one yelled at Adam or used bad words to him. 

The social worker noted that Adam had no visible marks or bruises, 

and when asked if he ever felt happy, sad, afraid, or angry, Adam 

said, “Happy.” Asked whether anyone drank beer at home, Adam 

did not know what beer was. He said his father smoked outside the 

house.

Father’s interview

On April 1, 2021, CSW interviewed father and Johnnie at 

father’s home. Referring to the March 24 incident, father said, “I 

admit to everything.” He said he would not lie, but disputed that he 

punched mother on the head, claiming he hit mother’s car, not her. 

Father said he wanted to reconcile with mother and admitted that 

he had been following her but denied he was stalking her. He 

explained that he had been trying to speak to her for several days,

but she was ignoring his attempts. Father went to maternal 

grandmother’s home several days before the incident but denied he 

was following her that day. He said that he drove past her place of 

employment on the way to the maternal grandmother’s home to 

drop off Adam from daycare, and when he arrived, mother blocked 

him with her car and prevented him from leaving. Father became 

upset and after he and mother began yelling at each other, he got 

out, approached her window, and they continued to argue while 

Adam remained in his car seat. Father became frustrated and hit 

mother’s car but did not recall hitting mother. Mother then got 

Adam out of his car seat, and father drove out of the driveway, 

hitting a trash can and mother’s car while leaving. He then parked 

his car up the street and walked back to speak to the police officers 

who had arrived. Father said the police arrested him because 

mother told them that he had hit her. He claimed that it was 
7

mother who hit him, but he did not tell the police because he did not 

want her to be arrested.4 Father was released without charges a 

few days later.

Asked about any past arrests, father acknowledged that he 

had been arrested for drugs a long time ago, as well as for domestic 

violence, which he described as “misunderstandings.” Father 

denied any current substance abuse issues but admitted he smoked 

cigarettes in the garage or backyard, never inside the home. Father 

denied any mental health or medical issues, but he was having a 

hard time coping with the separation. He reported to love mother 

and want to reconcile, as they had done before, though this has 

been their longest separation, and he felt that mother had changed 

in the last three years. Father expressed a willingness to go into 

counseling for anger management issues and would make an 

appointment. He claimed family support to help get him through 

this, and he intended to go back to church for help.

Father reported that he raised mother’s older biological sons 

as his own, and they call him dad. One still lives with him, and 

Johnnie too wants to stay with him. Father described his children 

as well behaved, and Adam as his “little buddy.” Father’s discipline 

methods for Adam are timeouts or loss of privileges, and for 

Johnnie, the withholding of videos and videogames.

Johnnie’s interview

In a private interview with Johnnie, the CSW was told the 

parents had “[s]mall arguments,” and “small hurtful words.” He 

denied ever seeing father and mother hit each other. He explained 

4 The police report indicated that father told the reporting 

officer that mother reached through the window and struck him 

twice on the chin. Father told the reporting officer that he did not 

strike mother, that mother struck him, and that as he walked away 

from her car, she got out of her car and threw a water cup at him.
8

that they would argue and walk away from one another, and five or 

six times in the past mother had left home but returned in a few 

hours or a day. When asked about discipline, Johnnie confirmed 

that father would take away his video games or internet privileges. 

Johnnie denied any abuse or neglect at father’s home and described 

himself as “not the brightest” and said that both parents 

encouraged him to express himself. He likes to make YouTube 

videos and create anime characters. At father’s home, he shared a 

room with his adult brother who was not always there, and said it 

was comfortable and quiet, and “That’s why I don’t want to live with 

my mom. I have my own space here.” However, he said once 

mother got her own place he would move in with her. Johnnie 

confirmed that father never smoked in the house and said that no 

one “really drinks beer.”

Other interviews

Paternal grandmother Alma E. was interviewed by CSW on 

April 1, 2021, when she denied witnessing any domestic violence 

between mother and father. She said they argued as most couples 

do, and she had no concerns about the children. Paternal 

grandmother found mother attentive and responsible and father to 

be a good father. Adam was attached to father, and Johnnie stayed

with father because he was comfortable.

On May 4, 2021, the staff at Adam’s daycare facility reported

that Adam was always clean and never exhibited marks or bruises. 

Adam was happy when mother dropped him off in the mornings and 

excited when father picked him up in the evening.

Removal of the children

On May 13, 2021, CSW went to the home of Luz N. (maternal 

aunt), where mother and children were living, with a warrant to 

remove the children from mother. Maternal aunt asked that the 

children remain in her care, offering to have mother move out of the 
9

home if necessary. When contacted by telephone, mother agreed to 

move out of the home. Father agreed to the placement.

May 20, 2021 detention hearing

Despite both parents having received proper notice of the

detention hearing, mother did not appear. Counsel for mother had 

been unable to make contact with her. Counsel for father entered a 

general denial to the petition. The juvenile court ordered the 

children detained from parental custody and to remain in the care 

of maternal aunt. The parents were to be referred to services to 

include domestic violence and parenting classes, as well as 

individual counseling. Parents were given monitored visits, with 

discretion in DCFS to liberalize, and mental health assessments for 

the parents and the children. The court scheduled mother’s 

arraignment and plea for June 18, 2021, and the adjudication 

hearing for June 28.

Mother appeared on June 18 and entered her denial to the 

petition. The court granted mother’s request for a TRO, scheduled 

the hearing on a permanent order for June 28, 2021, at the time set 

for adjudication (which was later continued several times), with the 

Department’s last minute information to be filed June 25. The 

court ordered continued detention at the home of maternal aunt 

with discretion in DCFS to allow mother to move back into the 

home. The last minute information, filed June 24, did not 

recommend that mother move back into maternal aunt’s home.

Jurisdiction/disposition report

The Department filed a jurisdiction and disposition report 

prior to the scheduled date of June 28. The report incorporated 

much of the detention report, including statements regarding the 

incidents leading to these proceedings and updated statements 

taken between June 10 and 14, 2021. 
10

Mother

Mother, in another interview, recounted the incident of 

March 24 and disagreed with some of the allegations contained in 

the petition as well as her prior statement that Adam was in 

father’s car. “Completely wrong. First of all, my son was out of the 

car. I never placed the trash can in back of his car. When he was 

leaving he hit my car. Next to my car, there were the trash cans 

outside. He hit the trash can. He came at me and hit me three 

times. I grabbed a cup and threw it at him. Adam was on the side 

of the driveway and I grabbed him. Adam saw what happened. I 

never hit his chin.” Mother said that in their 20 years together 

their arguments had never escalated into physical fights. She 

added that the harassment “started right after I left the home. We 

were constantly arguing. He was jealous and thought I was 

cheating on him. I just could not take the fact that he did not trust 

me. I left with Adam and Johnnie stayed with dad. He was 

stalking me but he did not do that in front of the kids. . . . I will 

never take him back. It is my kids before him.”

Father

In a reinterview on June 11, 2021, father explained that on 

March 24 when he approached mother’s car, he intended to “grab 

her shoulders and say ‘what are you doing?’ but she moved thinking 

I was going to hit her. My hand graced [sic] her while she was 

moving and when I pulled back I pulled her hair. She . . . hit me. I 

do not blame her. She threw a cup of water at me. Adam was in 

the car seat in my car.” 

Of the April 30, 2021, incident, father stated:

“I was driving and stop to get a monster (drink). I 

pulled into [a] gas station . . . . [Mother] was at the 

other gas station next door. We made eye contact. She 

said to me ‘Fuck you’ then I went to her home to talk to 

her and ask why does she cussed me out [sic]. She 
11

thought I was following and stalking to her. At her job, 

I went and left a note with flowers. I did put track[ing] 

devices on her car. That is true. I texted her. We have 

been together for 20 years. I wanted to catch her with 

someone and pro[ve] I was right. I was trying to make 

amends with her. I am surprised that she is carrying 

things this far[,] it is not like her. She would have 

given me the opportunity and call me by now. I do want 

to make it work and fix everything. To keep the 

restraining order strikes me as odd. She would have 

lifted it already.[5] I am a human being and I make 

mistakes. It got the best of me. I cannot take it back. 

Does that mean I am a bad father? Does that mean I 

want to hurt my kids? Does that mean I want to hit 

[mother]? No. I will never not admit when I am wrong. 

I am here because I want to be a better [father] and a 

better person.”

Johnnie

Johnnie thought his parents had a “good relationship” and 

explained: “Sometimes they will have fights like this one but then 

in a few days they will be back together. This is not part of the 

script. It is not supposed to be like this.” He added, “One of them 

would say something vulgar and raise voice and the other one 

would get mad. It is not that bad and no big deal. It was not often. 

They would be mad with each other a day or two. Sometimes 

[maternal grandmother] would be called and she [would] come over 

or my mom would take the two of us and leave. We would go to 

[paternal grandmother’s] house. My dad would go and talk to my 

mom and it was fixed.”

5 Another time, father admitted to CSW that there had been an 

occasion in 2019 when he pushed mother because she “came at 

[him]” during an argument, which prompted her to obtain a 

restraining order that she later dropped.
12

Adam

With regard to the March 24 incident, Adam said, “Daddy hit 

my mom. I was standing with my daddy. They do not want to be 

with each other anymore. My dad pushed my mom and my mommy 

hit my dad. My mommy was crying for me.” Adam added, “[T]hey 

hit each other. They yell at each other. That is it.” He 

demonstrated how mother and father would fight with his hands as 

if he was hitting someone.

Maternal Aunt

Maternal aunt thought father was a good father and was 

surprised to hear that father hit mother because he seemed 

respectful. All past arguments as far as she knew were verbal. 

After the driveway incident Adam said to her, “My daddy hit my 

mommy.”

Paternal grandmother

Paternal grandmother was aware of occasional verbal 

arguments but had never seen any physical altercations between 

them.

The director of Victory Outreach Men’s Home

The director of Victory Outreach Men’s Home, a Christianbased ministry working with people going through a difficult time, 

reported that father began the program on June 9, 2021, intending

to participate for three months, but left the program three days 

later. 

Parents’ past issues

The Department reported that mother had a history of 

methamphetamine use, apparently resolved in 2003, and in 2000 

father was convicted inflicting corporal injury on a previous 

coparent.
13

Case plan

The Department concluded that mother and father have a 

history of engaging in physical altercations in the presence of the 

children and that both parents deny domestic violence. The 

Department recommended that the amended petition be sustained, 

that the children be declared dependents of the court pursuant to 

section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b), and that family reunification 

services be ordered for both parents. For mother, the Department 

recommended orders for individual counseling to address issues 

including child protection and domestic violence, as well as 

domestic violence and parenting programs. For father, the 

Department recommended orders for individual counseling and 

programs in domestic violence and parenting. The plan also 

included orders for counseling and mental health assessments for 

the children. The Department recommended separate monitored 

visits with discretion to liberalize as to mother.

Jurisdiction, disposition, and restraining order hearing

The June 28 hearing was eventually continued to August 2, 

2021. The Department’s evidence was admitted. Father pled no 

contest to the amended petition, and the juvenile court found the 

allegations true as to him.

Mother had not yet enrolled in any programs, but would do so 

if ordered. The parties stipulated that mother would testify that 

she does not deny domestic violence incidents between her and 

father or that there were physical incidents in 2020, 2019, and 

March 2021; that she would start domestic violence counseling; and 

that she can financially provide for the children.

Mother submitted the issue of jurisdiction to the court, which 

found both counts to be true and sustained the petition as to mother 

and granted mother (alone, not including the children) a three-year 

permanent restraining order against father. The court found by 
14

clear and convincing evidence as required by section 361, 

subdivision (c) that there were no reasonable means to keep the 

children safe without removal at that time. The court expressed 

concern that mother appeared to be suffering from battered 

women’s syndrome as demonstrated by the “fits and starts” of her 

relationship with father, her inconsistency in breaking with father, 

and obtaining restraining orders and then taking them away. The 

court also found that while father had complied with his case plan, 

mother had not.

The court ordered the children to continue to live with 

maternal aunt with monitored visits for each parent with discretion 

in DCFS to liberalize, so long as mother and father visited 

separately. The section 366.21 review hearing was scheduled for 

January 31, 2022.

Mother filed a timely notice of appeal from the judgment.

DISCUSSION

I. Jurisdiction

Mother contends that the jurisdictional findings made 

pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b)(1), are 

unsupported by substantial evidence.

A. Standard of review

“If the court finds that the child is a person described by 

Section 300, it may order and adjudge the child to be a dependent 

child of the court.” (§ 360, subd. (d).) “‘In reviewing a challenge to 

the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jurisdictional findings 

and disposition, 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 
15

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

court.” [Citation.] “We do not reweigh the evidence or exercise 

independent judgment, but merely determine if there are sufficient 

facts to support the findings of the trial court. [Citations.] ‘“[T]he 

[appellate] court must review the whole record in the light most 

favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses 

substantial evidence . . . such that a reasonable trier of fact could 

find [that the order is appropriate].”’”’” (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 

766, 773.) It is mother, as the appellant, who bears the burden to 

show that insufficient evidence supports the jurisdictional findings. 

(Ibid.)

B. Section 300, subdivision (a)

Section 300, subdivision (a) provides in relevant part: “A 

child who comes within any of the following descriptions is within 

the jurisdiction of the juvenile 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.”

Mother contends that jurisdiction is not supported by 

substantial evidence that they were at a substantial risk of 

nonaccidental serious physical injury caused by their parents. 

Relying on In re Cole L. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 591 (Cole), mother 

argues that there was insufficient evidence of a risk of 

nonaccidentally inflicting harm on Adam during the argument in 

which father hit mother because Adam was in the car and thus not 

close enough to be injured. In Cole, the appellate court noted that 

“‘[n]onaccidental’ generally means a parent or guardian ‘acted 

intentionally or willfully.’” (Id. at p. 600, quoting In re R.T. (2017) 3 

Cal.5th 622, 629.) The court acknowledged that “[a]cts of domestic 

violence themselves, of course, are intentional.” (Cole, at p. 603.) 

Nevertheless, the court indicated that a child would have to be very 
16

close to the violence to amount to a risk of nonaccidental injury and 

that “[a]n unintended injury to a bystander child that results from 

an intentional act directed at another—for example, due to an 

object thrown by one parent at another during an argument—

[would] not satisfy that statutory requirement.” (Ibid.)

We disagree. “Domestic violence is nonaccidental.” (In re 

Giovanni F. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 594, 600.) When exposure to a 

parent’s domestic violence places a child at substantial risk of 

serious physical harm, the application of section 300, subdivision (a) 

is appropriate even though cases based on exposure to domestic 

violence can be filed under section 300, subdivision (b). 

(Giovanni F., at p. 600; see In re Nathan E. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 

114, 121-122.) In some cases, such exposure may include throwing 

objects and pushing the other parent. (Cf. In re M.M. (2015) 240 

Cal.App.4th 703, 720-721.) Mother’s argument suggests that the 

violence must be “horrendous” as in In re Giovanni F., supra, at 

pages 599-600, or perpetrated in a specific proximity to the child as 

in In re M.M., supra, at page 720. Neither case requires specific 

acts or distance. The legislative purpose of the laws relating to 

dependent children, including section 300, subdivision (a), is to 

provide maximum safety and protection for children from acts or 

omissions that place them at a substantial risk of suffering serious 

physical harm or illness. (In re M.M., at p. 720; see § 300.2.) 

Section 300, subdivision (a) seeks to avoid a substantial risk of 

nonaccidental injury and does not require an extreme risk or a 

specific distance between the violence and the child before acting to 

protect the child.

Nor does Cole support mother’s arguments, as its facts are 

distinguishable. In Cole, “it was undisputed the children were 

asleep in a bedroom, away from their parents, during the single 

domestic disturbance for which there was any concrete evidence.” 
17

(Cole, supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at p. 604.)6 In Cole, there was no 

direct evidence that either parent hit the other or threw anything.

The police were called due to the sound of “screaming, yelling, 

banging and slamming” in the home and the responding officer 

observed that mother and father were under the influence of alcohol 

and had scratches and bruises. (Cole, at pp. 595-597.) Here, Adam 

reported that he was standing with his father during the March 24 

incident and saw father punch mother. Although mother said 

Adam was inside father’s car, she also said Adam was outside the 

car when she threw the cup of water. Mother claimed to be

defending herself, but her statements indicate that mother got out 

of the car in order to throw an object at father as he walked away. 

Mother admitted she threw the only thing that was nearby and 

then grabbed Adam, suggesting Adam was close to her when she 

threw the cup.

We conclude that substantial evidence supported the juvenile 

court’s finding that Adam was at substantial risk of injury due to 

his exposure to domestic violence.

C. Section 300, subdivision (b)(1)

Section 300, subdivision (b) provides in relevant part: “(1) The 

child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will 

suffer, serious physical harm or illness, as a result of . . . [¶] (A) 

The failure or inability of the child’s parent or guardian to 

adequately supervise or protect the child. [¶] . . . [¶] (3) The child 

6 We do not agree with mother’s assertion that Cole is 

indistinguishable because there, in an incident that had allegedly 

occurred two years earlier, the mother hit the maternal 

grandmother while the latter was holding the child and the 

maternal grandmother pepper-sprayed the mother. DCFS closed 

that matter as inconclusive. (See Cole, supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at

p. 597.)
18

shall continue to be a dependent child pursuant to this subdivision 

only so long as is necessary to protect the child from risk of 

suffering serious physical harm or illness.”

Mother contends that substantial evidence did not establish 

that a risk of harm existed at the time of the jurisdictional hearing. 

“Although section 300 requires proof the child is subject to the 

defined risk of harm at the time of the jurisdiction hearing 

[citations], the court need not wait until a child is seriously abused 

or injured to assume jurisdiction and take steps necessary to protect 

the child. [Citations.] The court may consider past events in 

deciding whether a child presently needs the court’s protection.” 

(Cole, supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at pp. 601-602, citing In re J.N. (2021) 

62 Cal.App.5th 767, 775.)

Mother contends that any risk had been resolved by the time 

of the jurisdiction decision on August 2, 2021, as there had been no 

violence involving the couple for over four months. She relies on a 

comparison to In re Ma.V. (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 11, where there 

had been a 10-month separation between mother and her boyfriend 

between referral and jurisdiction and disposition. In that case, the 

appellate court reversed a juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings 

and removal order because its findings were based on stale acts of 

domestic violence and because the mother had resolved the key 

concerns that were the basis for jurisdiction. (Id. at pp. 23-26.)

Unlike here, mother was receiving individual, parenting, and 

domestic violence counseling even though the juvenile court had not 

ordered a case plan. Mother had so improved her situation the 

earlier issues had “aged out.” (Id. at pp. 18, 23-25.)

Mother points to the following evidence to support her 

assertion that the passage of four months between referral and 

adjudication demonstrated that there was no current risk: neither 

parent had inflicted physical harm on either child; the last incident 
19

of physical domestic violence occurred in March 2021; prior 

attempts to obtain a restraining order were unsuccessful; she 

obtained a TRO on May 7, 2021, made permanent on August 2, 

2021; she was separated from father for a month prior to the March

incident and showed no intention thereafter to resume a 

relationship with him; and while father had a prior domestic 

violence referral with another partner, the Department had 

received no prior referrals concerning father and mother. Mother 

concludes from this evidence that father’s long ago domestic 

violence referral with another partner and the period between the 

juvenile court’s temporary and permanent restraining orders did

not provide evidence of a current risk. She also concludes that the 

juvenile court erred in finding that she was inconsistent in breaking 

her relationship with father, arguing that her past attempts to

obtain restraining orders show otherwise, and thus there is no 

current risk to the children.

Under the substantial evidence standard of review, the issue 

is not whether there is sufficient evidence to support mother’s 

position, but whether substantial evidence supports the juvenile 

court’s ruling. (See In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614, 640.) 

Mother acknowledges that the record must be viewed in the light 

most favorable to the court’s determinations and that all reasonable 

inferences from the evidence must be drawn in support the court’s 

findings and orders. (See In re I.J., supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 773.) 

However, her conclusions are drawn only from fragments of 

evidence favoring her position.

When the whole record is viewed in the light most favorable 

to the juvenile court’s order, substantial evidence shows that 

mother had been inconsistent in breaking her relationship with 

father and the three-month period between the temporary and 

permanent restraining orders did not disprove current risk. Mother 
20

claimed she and father had separated in February 2021 after 20 

years together due to his verbal, mental and psychological abuse

and his having isolated her from her family, stalked her, and 

harassed her at her job. Father and Johnnie both reported that 

after arguments, mother would leave for several hours or a day and 

then return. Several times mother demonstrated a reluctance or 

refusal to obtain or enforce restraining orders against father. Her 

back and forth separations from father occurred several times prior 

to 2021 and into February 2021 even though she had obtained a 

restraining order against father in January 2021, which she

thought she had expunged.

Mother claims that other attempts to obtain a restraining 

order had been unsuccessful, but evidence suggests she did not 

diligently pursue them. When the police offered her an emergency 

restraining order on March 24, 2021, she declined. She claims to 

have attempted to obtain a restraining order on March 29, 2021.

7

When she appeared on the March date, she was given another court 

date of April 9, 2021, but she failed to appear and later claimed that 

she did not know about the court date and had to work. Mother 

refused CSW’s several offers of help to obtain a restraining order. 

On April 1, 2021, mother refused help, reasoning that father had 

not harassed her after the March 24 incident, that he would not like 

that, and that it would not be best for the children to keep father 

away from them. On April 16, mother explained that she had not 

had time to apply for a restraining order.

Current risk to a child may be shown by past conduct plus the 

parent’s response to the conditions that gave rise to dependency 

7 The page to which mother cites in the appellate record states 

that she applied on March 19, 2021, not March 29, but that is 

probably a typo, as that would be before the March 24 incident.
21

proceedings. (See In re D.B. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 320, 332.) Here, 

the violence between mother and father is not so remote that a fourmonth separation, without addressing the issues causing the 

dependency petition and detention, would show that the issues had 

been resolved. Although parents may not have been referred to 

DCFS prior to March 2021, mother admitted other incidents of 

violence between her and father in 2020, 2019, and March 2021, 

although she had previously denied physical fights in the past. The 

children remembered past physical fights as well. Johnnie said 

that while most of mother and father’s fights had been verbal, 

“[s]ometimes” they had “fights like this one but then in a few days 

they will be back together.” (Italics added.) Adam said, “[T]hey hit 

each other. They yell at each other. That is it.” Adam 

demonstrated by making a hitting motion with his hands. Although 

the Department’s case plan had not been formally ordered by the 

court until adjudication, it had been in place since June 28, 2021, 

and as early as May 7, the court ordered DCFS to refer parents to 

services including domestic violence, parenting, and individual 

counseling. Prior to August 2, mother did not enroll in any 

programs.

Given mother’s history of returning to father despite years of 

abuse and domestic violence, her reluctance to obtain a restraining 

order, and her resistance to recommended counseling and 

programs, we conclude that substantial evidence supported the trial 

court’s current risk findings under section 300, subdivision (b)(1), as 

well as subdivision (a).

II. Removal of the children

Mother contends that substantial evidence did not support 

removal of the children at the time of disposition.

As relevant here, section 361, subdivision (c)(1), provides that 

the juvenile court may remove physical custody of the child from a
22

parent where it finds by clear and convincing evidence that there 

would be substantial danger to the physical health, safety, 

protection, or emotional well-being of the child if returned home, 

and there are no reasonable means to protect the child without

removal from the parent’s physical custody.

“When reviewing a finding that a fact has been proved by 

clear and convincing evidence, the question before the appellate 

court is whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence 

from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly 

probable that the fact was true. In conducting its review, the court 

must view the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing 

party below and give appropriate deference to how the trier of fact 

may have evaluated the credibility of witnesses, resolved conflicts 

in the evidence, and drawn reasonable inferences from the 

evidence.” (Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1011-

1012.) As the appellant, mother has the burden of showing there is 

no evidence of a sufficiently substantial nature to support the 

dispositional findings or order. (See In re T.W. (2013) 214 

Cal.App.4th 1154, 1161-1162.)

Mother seems to rely on the same evidence that she 

previously summarized in the light most favorable to her position, 

as well as on inferences similar to those that she drew from that 

evidence to contest the juvenile court’s findings under section 300, 

subdivisions (a) and (b)(1).8 Mother refers to her three requests for 

8 In addition, mother states that she was the custodial parent 

prior to the initiation of dependency proceedings by virtue of the 

TRO issued on May 7, 2021, which she claims granted her sole legal 

and physical custody of the children. We have reviewed the TRO

issued on that date by the superior court and find no language 

awarding legal or physical custody to the children; and mother has 

not shown or even alleged that custody was at issue in that case.
23

restraining orders made after the March 24 incident, of which one 

was denied and two granted, and points out that she followed them 

from May to August 2021.9 Mother thus again argues that she was 

diligent in obtaining restraining orders and suggests that any 

denials did not show otherwise, although her successful attempt on 

May 7, 2021, was made only when the juvenile court issued the 

removal warrant, which was served just three days after mother 

finally obtained a TRO.

Mother also suggests that the children would not have been in 

substantial danger if they had been returned to her care, because it 

was father who was the aggressor during the incidents of domestic 

violence. She emphasizes that the final sentence of the amended 

petition alleges that it was father’s actions that endangered the 

children. Mother need not be found to be dangerous, and the child

need not have been harmed to justify removal, as the focus of the 

statute is on averting harm to the child. (In re T.W., supra, 214 

Cal.App.4th at p. 1163.) “Rather, the juvenile court must determine 

whether a child will be in substantial danger if permitted to remain 

in the parent’s physical custody, considering not only the parent’s 

past conduct, but also current circumstances, and the parent’s 

response to the conditions that gave rise to juvenile court 

intervention.” (In re I.R. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 510, 520.)

As we explained in part II above, when viewed in the light 

most favorable to the judgment, mother’s resistance to the services 

offered by DCFS unless ordered to do so, mother’s history of 

returning to her abuser, her refusal of offers of help in obtaining a 

restraining order, her failure to appear in court or to follow up on 

her applications, and her disregard for and attempted expungement 

9 The May 7 TRO required father to follow it, not mother, and 

we found no evidence that he did not do so.
24

of a prior restraining order all support the conclusion that mother 

was reluctant to break off her relationship with father, had not 

quite resolved to stay away from him as she claims, and was 

unwilling to make the effort to understand the conditions that gave 

rise juvenile court intervention or to avoid their recurrence. And as 

respondent notes, mother appeared to minimize the danger that 

Adam may have been in while standing near the driveway as father 

backed out in anger, hitting a trash can. Mother expressed concern 

that she had been accused of placing the trash can behind his car. 

We conclude that the same evidence supporting jurisdiction 

supports the substantial danger finding under the heightened 

standard.

Mother also disagrees with the juvenile court’s finding that 

there were no reasonable means to keep the children safe without 

removal from her. Mother does not, however, contend that the 

court’s conclusion was not supported by substantial evidence. 

Instead, mother suggests the means that she deems reasonable by 

which the Department could have prevented removal, such as

supervision of the family by the juvenile court and the Department 

while they and mother continued to reside with maternal relatives 

with unannounced visits, as her counsel suggested. Mother fails to 

explain how these suggestions would be substantially different or 

any more effective than those measures that were in place prior to 

disposition. Mother’s counsel also conceded on August 2, 2021, that 

mother had not yet begun recommended classes, although counsel 

assured the court that she was open to participating in family 

preservation services. As mother had indicated that she would 

participate in services only if ordered to do so, mother’s willingness 

to consider participation does not demonstrate that the juvenile 

court’s finding was unsupported by substantial evidence.
25

Giving appropriate deference to how the juvenile court may 

have evaluated mother’s credibility and resolved the conflicts in the 

evidence, we conclude that the record, viewed as a whole, contains 

substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could 

have found a high probability of substantial danger to the physical 

health, safety, protection, or emotional well-being of the child if the 

child were returned home with mother.

DISPOSITION

The judgment of the juvenile court is affirmed.

________________________

CHAVEZ, J.

We concur:

________________________

LUI, P. J.

________________________

HOFFSTADT, J.