Filed 1/28/21 In re P.S. CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

In re P.S. et al., Persons Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

______________________________

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

 v.

C.S. et al.,

 Defendant and Appellant.

 B305233

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 

19CCJP07585A–C)

 APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Kim L. Nguyen, Judge. Affirmed in part and 

dismissed in part.

 Marissa Coffey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Appellant C.S.
2

Janette Freeman Cochran, under appointment by the Court 

of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant J.C.

Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant 

County Counsel, and David Michael Miller, Deputy County 

Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________

The juvenile court assumed jurisdiction over three sisters 

and removed the two older ones from parental custody. 

Substantial evidence showed the parents bruised these two with 

belts. After the parties filed their appellate papers, the juvenile 

court restored parental custody. One parent concedes her appeal 

is now moot. The other parent maintains he has been prejudiced 

by the juvenile court’s erroneous assumption of jurisdiction. 

Because the court’s finding of jurisdiction as to the older sisters 

was proper, we affirm in part. We also dismiss as moot the 

mother’s appeal and the remainder of the father’s appeal. 

Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

I

The Los Angeles County Department of Children and 

Family Services filed a section 300 petition on behalf of the 

children in November 2019. The children were then eight, six, 

and newly born. We refer to the children as the eldest, the 

middle child, and the infant to protect their anonymity. (Cal. 

Rules of Court, rule 8.401(a)(2).)

The petition asserts jurisdiction under section 300, 

subdivisions (a), (b)(1), and (j). The petition alleges Mother and 

her male companion physically abused the two older girls many 

times by hitting them with belts. The girls suffered pain, 

suffering, swelling, and bruises. The petition also asserts Mother 
3

knew or should have known of, yet failed to prevent, her 

companion’s abuse of the girls. 

Mother’s male companion is the biological father of the 

infant and the presumed—but not biological—father of the older 

girls. We refer to him as Father. 

Concerning the infant, the petition alleges the parents’ 

abuse of the older girls and Mother’s failure to protect them from 

Father created a detrimental home environment and placed the 

infant at risk of serious physical harm. 

The Department’s investigation found the following.

On November 21, 2019, the middle child spoke with school 

personnel, who then made a child abuse referral to the 

Department. The child reported her mother recently spanked her 

and her older sister after finding pictures of the girls on her 

sister’s phone. Father used a belt on them after he came home. 

The child had a bruise on her wrist and another one—“a bad 

one”—on her thigh that hurt. 

The Department interviewed the child and her sister at 

school later that day. The eldest reported Mother and Father 

punished her and her sister by making them stay in a corner for 

long periods until their legs hurt. Sometimes they were spanked, 

and sometimes the spankings left marks. Father had spanked 

her at least 10 times before the latest incident. He used different 

belts on her and her sister. The eldest showed the social worker 

a “large, purplish bruise” on her forearm; this was from a leather 

belt Father used. The bruise was consistent with raising an arm 

in a defensive position. The girl’s arm was swollen before, but 

the swelling was going down. She was afraid of Father. In her 

words: “He’s really mean to us. He yells at us for no reason and 

he doesn’t like my sister [ ]. Sometimes he hits me so hard with 
4

the belt, I use the bathroom on myself and then I get in trouble 

for peeing on myself.” 

The middle child’s interview was similar. She told the 

social worker Mother and then Father hit her with a belt on the 

day in question. They “always” hit her when she gets in trouble, 

usually with a belt. Father would laugh after hitting them. The 

child was scared of him and sometimes hid when he got upset. 

She said he did “mean stuff” to them but did not offer specifics. 

The social worker observed “extensive large, purplish and black 

bruises on the length of her entire left thigh, including the front 

and sides of her leg.” A large, purple bruise covered the child’s 

wrist, “consistent with a defensive mark.” She was still in pain 

two days after the “whooping.” 

A police report from November 22, 2019 detailed the 

following: Officers met with the two girls at a hospital. Both 

girls said both Mother and Father had hit them with belts. The 

eldest reported she was whipped approximately eight times in 

the arm. She and her sister were “frequently” hit with a belt to 

the point where they “use[d] the restroom on themselves.” The 

middle child—whose eyes immediately watered when asked what 

happened, and who answered the officers in whispers—said her 

parents hit her “everywhere.” The reporting officer saw bruising 

on both girls. 

At the time of the referral, Mother was at the hospital. She 

had just given birth to the infant. The Department interviewed 

Mother at the hospital, and afterwards. Mother admitted hitting 

the older girls with a belt a few times for the phone incident. She 

said she was shocked and angry after seeing a video of the middle 

child dancing inappropriately. Mother denied hitting them hard 
5

and defended herself by claiming the girls bruised easily. Father 

was in the room at the time but did not hit the children. 

Mother admitted using a belt on the girls in the past but 

maintained she usually disciplined by other means. According to 

Mother, Father never hits the girls, and they are not afraid of 

him. 

Father told the Department he witnessed Mother 

“whooping” both girls with a belt for a few minutes that night. 

Then he “just left and let her [Mother] handle it.” Later in the 

investigation, Father denied being present for the beating. He 

speculated the girls had been coached to say he hits them. 

Father admitted yelling at them and taking away their toys and 

television for discipline but said he does not hit the girls because 

they are not his kids to spank. 

At the November 26, 2019 detention hearing, the juvenile 

court ordered the older sisters detained. The girls were 

temporarily living with their maternal grandparents. The infant 

(then a newborn and still nursing) was released to the parents. 

On January 10, 2020, more than a month after the older 

sisters were detained, a social worker interviewed the girls again, 

this time during one of Mother’s monitored visits. The eldest 

again described the beating she received for the phone incident. 

She “got hit all over,” especially her arms and legs. She cried 

because it hurt, and she had bruising later that night. Mother 

hit her once before this incident; but she usually took away 

electronics. The child maintained she “deserved the whooping.” 

She was not afraid of her parents and wanted to go home. She 

felt bad because Mother had always been there for her and her 

sister. 
6

The middle child, too, confirmed Mother got mad and gave 

the girls a “whooping” for the phone incident. Mother hit her 

hand and legs with a belt. It was fast. But it hurt, and she cried. 

The bruise burned that night when she took a bath. This was her 

third whooping. Like her older sister, the middle child 

maintained she “should have gotten a whooping because I did 

wrong.” She wanted to go home, missed her parents, and was not 

afraid of them. 

This time, both girls maintained Father never has hit them 

with a belt. 

On January 30th, more than two months after the older 

girls began living with their grandparents, the Department 

interviewed the girls a third time. The eldest child reported 

Father yells at her and her sister and makes them feel scared; 

but he never hit her. She first denied and then admitted telling 

the initial social worker Father hit her, explaining she did this 

because she did not want Mother to be with him. She does not 

want to share her mother with Father. But she wanted to go 

home, even if he was there. 

The middle child told a similar story: Father only yelled at 

the girls and scared them but did not hit them. Her initial 

statements about Father were motivated by a desire to break up 

her parents so she could have her mother back. She, too, wanted 

to go home. 

During this visit, the Department also interviewed the 

maternal grandmother. She had never seen Father hit the 

children and did not believe he ever did. The girls told her 

Father never hit them. They do not like sharing Mother with 

Father. And they are dishonest at times. 
7

A last minute information report showed both parents were 

participating in anger management and parenting classes. 

The juvenile court held a combined jurisdiction and 

disposition hearing on February 27, 2020. It found the older 

sisters’ initial statements most credible. The court sustained the 

entire petition and declared the three children dependents of the 

court. 

The court then ordered the older sisters removed from 

parental custody. However, it believed the infant was differently 

situated and kept her in parental custody, over the Department’s 

objection. 

Both parents appealed. Father challenges the juvenile 

court’s jurisdictional findings and the removal order. Mother 

challenges only the removal order. 

II

Recent events have rendered some issues moot. 

On September 16, 2019, the juvenile court issued orders 

returning the older sisters to parental custody and terminating 

jurisdiction as to the infant. The court set a review hearing for 

the older sisters for March 17, 2021. 

We took judicial notice of these orders on our own motion 

and requested briefing regarding whether the appeals, or issues 

therein, were now moot. 

Mother concedes the juvenile court’s orders have rendered 

her appeal moot. Father argues his appeal is not moot because 

the court’s jurisdictional findings were erroneous, the existence of 

these findings can “haunt” him later, and this court can provide 

effective relief by vacating the findings. Father does not mention 

the removal order in his supplemental briefing. 
8

The Department agrees with Mother and argues the issue 

of removal is moot. It also requests dismissal of Father’s appeal 

as to the infant. 

We agree with Mother that her appeal is moot, and we 

dismiss her appeal. (See In re N.S. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 53, 

58–59 (N.S.) [appellate court dismisses appeal when it can no 

longer grant effective relief].) In addition, because the juvenile 

court terminated jurisdiction over the infant, we cannot provide 

effective relief as to this child. (See id. at pp. 61–63.) 

Father argues an actual controversy remains, as the 

jurisdictional findings “will remain forever” and threaten 

unspecified future harm. But the three cases on which Father 

relies do not show any issue regarding the infant is justiciable. 

In In re J.A. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 1036, 1050–1051, the 

appellate court exercised its discretion to address jurisdictional 

errors after the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction because the 

issue before it was likely to recur in the future and was one of 

public importance. The appellate court reasoned: “If we fail to 

exercise our discretion to resolve the jurisdictional appeal, the 

Department may feel free to continue to pursue jurisdiction in 

other cases where there is no evidence of substance abuse, and no 

evidence of substantial risk—only evidence that a child was born 

testing positive for marijuana, bolstered only by vague and 

unproven concerns.” (Id. at p. 1051.) In other words, the 

Department had overreached in bringing the case, and the court 

believed it needed to curb future overreaching. 

In In re Justin O. (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 1006, 1018, a 

grandmother’s appeal attacking jurisdictional findings was not 

moot, even though she no longer sought custody of the children, 
9

because the findings had serious ongoing consequences for her—

they resulted in “severely restricted” visitation rights. 

And in In re Adam D. (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1258–

1261, the issue was whether an appealable order existed where 

the juvenile court had ordered something akin to informal 

supervision under section 360, subdivision (b). 

Here, Father identifies no continuing issue of public 

importance and no concrete negative consequence flowing from 

the jurisdictional findings concerning the infant. These 

particular findings are not the basis of any current family law or 

other order adverse to Father. (See N.S., supra, 245 Cal.App.4th 

at p. 61.) Father’s concerns instead are generalized and 

speculative. We decline to exercise our discretion to review these 

findings. (See id. at p. 59 [identifying circumstances in which a 

court may exercise such discretion even though it cannot provide 

effective relief].) And we dismiss as moot the portions of Father’s 

appeal challenging these findings and the removal order.

The remaining issue is the validity of the juvenile court’s 

jurisdictional findings concerning the older sisters. These 

children remain under the juvenile court’s jurisdiction. Father 

argues “[n]either Mother’s nor Father’s conduct supported a 

finding that [the children] fell within the court’s dependency 

jurisdiction.” That is, he challenges the jurisdictional findings in 

their entirety. As we explain below, the juvenile court was right 

to assume jurisdiction over these two children.

III

We review jurisdictional findings for substantial evidence.

(In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 633 (R.T.).) In doing so, we 

indulge all reasonable inferences and resolve all conflicts in favor 

of the findings; examine the record in the light most favorable to 
10

the juvenile court’s determinations; and refrain from making 

credibility determinations. (Ibid.; In re D.P. (2014) 225 

Cal.App.4th 898, 902 (D.P.).)

Here, jurisdiction was grounded in section 300, 

subdivisions (a), (b)(1), and (j). We focus on the first subdivision, 

as we can affirm the jurisdiction ruling if substantial evidence 

supports any ground enumerated in the petition. (D.P., supra, 

225 Cal.App.4th at p. 902.)

Section 300, subdivision (a) provides for jurisdiction when a 

child has suffered or is at substantial risk of suffering serious 

physical harm inflicted nonaccidentally by a parent.

IV

Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s decision 

to assume jurisdiction under this provision.

Substantial evidence shows Mother and Father 

intentionally inflicted serious physical harm on the older sisters 

in November 2019. Substantial evidence also shows the parents’ 

actions put the girls at substantial risk of such harm. 

Both children reported Mother and Father beat them with 

a belt on the day in question. Extensive bruising on their bodies 

corroborated their accounts. The middle child was in pain days 

later. The statements the girls made to school personnel, the 

initial social worker, and the police about this beating—all close 

in time to the incident—were consistent. Mother admitted she 

hit the girls with a belt multiple times that day. 

The record also contains credible evidence that Father 

allowed Mother to inflict serious physical harm on the girls, and 

vice versa. Mother said Father was in the room when she used 

the belt on the girls. Initially, Father admitted he was present 

for the beating. But he did nothing to stop it. Instead, he left 
11

and let Mother “handle it.” The eldest child told police Mother 

and Father together whipped her and her sister with belts. Each 

parent thus was an aggressor. Each was passive when the other 

was violent. Both minimized the severity of the abuse. 

This was not the only time the parents had used belts on 

the girls. The middle child said her parents always hit her when 

she got in trouble, and usually with a belt. The eldest said 

Father often spanked her and her sister with a belt and would hit

them so hard, they would wet themselves. Both children said 

they feared him. 

This was not appropriate discipline. Dancing 

inappropriately and videotaping the dancing do not warrant a 

severe beating. The parents’ conduct was excessively punitive, 

not genuinely disciplinary. (See In re D.M. (2015) 242 

Cal.App.4th 634, 641 (D.M.) [outlining considerations for 

determining when parental discipline is reasonable or excessive].) 

Mother admitted she acted out of shock and anger. 

The violence here is nothing like the discipline described in 

D.M., supra, 242 Cal.App.4th 634, on which Father relies. There, 

a mother occasionally spanked her children on their bottoms with 

a hand or sandal. There was no evidence of marks or bruises 

from the spankings. (Id. at pp. 637–638.)

Contrary to Father’s suggestion, this case also is unlike In 

re Isabella F. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 128, 139, where “[t]he 

primary motivating factor in declaring jurisdiction appears to 

have been to offer mother services,” not to address any risk of 

serious harm to the children. 

Father argues there was not a risk of serious harm to the 

children because he and Mother made substantial progress in 

completing anger management and parenting classes and were 
12

cooperating with the Department. But here, there was 

substantial evidence of actual physical harm, so our analysis does 

not turn solely on risk. 

The lone case on which Father relies for this argument does 

not help him. In re L.C. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 646 concerned a 

guardian’s occasional drug use outside of the home and the child’s 

presence. During the dependency proceedings, the guardian was 

contrite, ultimately admitted his drug use, and began drug 

testing on his own initiative. (Id. at p. 650–651.) Father’s 

situation is different. He maintains he does not hit the girls and 

claimed the girls were coached to lie about him. 

Father emphasizes the girls recanted their initial 

statements about him and revealed a motive for lying initially: 

they wanted Father out of Mother’s life. In essence, Father asks 

us to reweigh the evidence. We decline. (See R.T., supra, 3 

Cal.5th at p. 633.)

The juvenile court correctly ruled the older sisters came 

under its jurisdiction. (See In re Mariah T. (2008) 159 

Cal.App.4th 428, 438–439 [dependency jurisdiction proper where 

mother hit young child on the stomach and forearms with a belt, 

causing deep, purple bruises].)
13

DISPOSITION

We dismiss Mother’s entire appeal and Father’s appeal as 

to the infant and as to disposition. We affirm the juvenile court’s 

ruling that it had jurisdiction over the older sisters. 

WILEY, J.

We Concur:

BIGELOW, P. J.

STRATTON, J.